EPA Reluctantly Agrees to Further Testing of the Superfund Site

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike Webb told the group:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Target TCP Update Agendized for January 16 City-County Two-by-Two

Representatives from the City and the County will meet on January 16, to discuss among other issues, the issue of TCP that was found in test sites around the Target Superfund site. To date, the EPA has dismissed community based calls for further testing before construction begins at their site.

The City-County will have their 2-by-2 meeting on Friday January 16, 2009 at 9 AM in the conference room at the Davis County Office which is located a block from City Hall at 600 A Street. The item on Target and the issue of the TCP has been agendized for discussion. The 2-by-2 consists of two members from the Board of Supervisors and two members from the City Council. That will be the two Davis Supervisors, which means that this will be newly installed Supervisor Jim Provenza's first 2-by-2. Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Councilmember Don Saylor represent the city.

For some reason the agenda for these meetings is not readily available from the city. This is a public meeting and the public under the Brown Act ought to be informed about it. Thus there is no posted information on either the City's webpage or the County's webpage. It would be interesting to see where the meetings are posted and whether the city and county are in compliance with the Brown Act regarding posting and announcing such meetings. Regardless, even if this is within the letter of the law, it certainly seems to break the spirit of the law.

Here's a letter from Congressman Mike Thompson who seems unconcerned about the problem--further illustrating why it was a good thing that he was not selected as Secretary of the Interior.

Thank you for contacting me regarding elevated levels of trichloropropane (TCP) found at the 2nd Street construction site of the Target in Davis. I appreciate you sharing these concerns with me.

Rest assured that I am aware of the discovery of TCP at the construction site and agree that public safety - for residents, construction workers, future employees and shoppers - is of the utmost concern. I have been in contact with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the City of Davis about the concerns that have been expressed to me and I will continue to follow the issue. The EPA has explained that no contamination has been found at the building location and that the high concentrations of TCP are at the neighboring disposal basin and should be addressed soon as part of the final cleanup of the Superfund site.

Presently, remediation in the form of gravel/vapor barriers and air sampling is being conducted regardless of construction activity. Additionally, the EPA has an enforceable agreement with Target should more aggressive containment measures prove necessary. A strong EPA agreement with a responsible partner willing to conduct monitoring and remedial action as necessary is crucial to mitigate the risks from contaminants over the long term. For its part, the City of Davis has significant experience in managing matters of soil and groundwater contamination, most notably at the Fifth and G Streets site that now houses the US Department of Agriculture.

Again, thank you for your concern and vigilance on this issue. Please continue to contact me on all issues of importance to you and our district.

Sincerely,

MIKE THOMPSON
Member of Congress
http://www.mikethompson.house.gov

The problem that residents of Davis face at the moment is that the City Council has very limited jurisdiction over such matters. This goes back to the issue of Agraquest and possible health threats the community might face from environmental contamination at their Kennedy Place site. The city has limited ability to act on such things.

The county is far better situated on both issues to deal with it. However, the County Health Department summarily without investigation dismissed concerns about Agraquest, and now it appears they have done little with regards to the potential threat that residents adjacent to the Superfund site may face from exposure to TCP.

On Monday, the Sacramento Bee reported:

"The chemical has previously been found at the neighboring Frontier Fertilizer Superfund site along Second Street, near Interstate 80 and Mace Boulevard.

But nearby residents are now concerned it may be migrating northeast under the Target site, toward their homes."

Bonnie Arthur, the EPA Superfund project manager said the following:

"The chemical is known to cause cancer, she said. But she said it does not threaten the city's drinking water supply, which is drawn from deeper wells. "Nobody's drinking this water," she said."

However, members of the Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Oversight Group are not so sure that it is not a threat to drinking water if it continues to move and begins to leach into wells that lie at a deeper level.

The question is where is the county on all of this? They have a health department and they have the power to investigate these matters independent of the EPA. If this represents an actual health threat, it would seem that the county should step in.

But in both this and the Agraquest issue, the county has been silent.

It remains to be seen if a more aggressive Supervisor like Jim Provenza might be able to change some of this. January 16, 2009 will be a very important meeting on this matter, and residents concerned about this issue should try to attend, even though the meeting is happening during the work day when working people will have difficulty attending.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

District Does Grande Property the Right Way and It Will Pay Off

Last night at the Davis City Council meeting, the City Council heard from the school district for the first time about the 41-unit proposed development on DJUSD property that the district has been hoping to sell for some time in order to provide some additional facilities money through the California Education Code’s provisions for the sale of public surplus property.

The result of the meeting was a unanimous 5-0 by the council to move the process forward. At the conclusion of the item, a good sized number of the Grande Property neighbors stood up and cheered. It was the end of a long process, but the last year and a half of this process has marked a model for government agency inter-cooperation between the school district and the city and an equally impressive model for government agency-neighborhood cooperation.

It was only just over one year ago, in their November 18, 2007 Op-Ed in the Davis Enterprise, that former DJUSD Board Trustees Marty West and Joan Sallee accused the newer school board with fiscal mismanagement regarding the Grande Property. They wrote:

“When we left the school board in December 2005, the finances of the school district were in good shape. Any financial mismanagement that has occurred has been on the 2006 and 2007 school board's watch. In early 2006, the board majority rescinded the $5.5 million contract we had signed to sell the Grande Avenue site, thus jeopardizing funding for building a student commons at the high school and modernizing Emerson Junior High School.”

The Vanguard has largely debunked that argument with a detailed recount of the Grande issue that was run on March 10, 2008 as the third installment in the Vanguard Investigation into Tahir Ahad and the dealings of the DJUSD Business Office under his leadership.

In 2005, there was no chance that the neighbors would have stood up and cheered. The early process was marred by neighborhood complaints and backdoor deals, the likes of which are still not fully known even after the Vanguard's investigation.

The gist of the arrangement was a shady three way trade in which the district fearing the city to the invoke the Naylor Act and require sale to the city at below market, tried to swap the land with UC Davis property near the Fairfield school and then sell the land to a Bay Area based developer.

From the March 10, 2008 Vanguard:

The arrangement that Superintendent David Murphy and Tahir Ahad had employed by October of 2005 was a land swap that involved a UC Davis property that was the home of Fairfield Elementary School. This piece of property that the university had not wanted was offered to Davis Joint Unified for at least three years prior to this land exchange. The university had been willing to simply give DJUSD the Fairfield School property at no cost.

Instead, the school district would enter into an agreement with BP Equities in which BP Equities would pay the school district $4.5 million in exchange for helping the school district to acquire the 10-acre site west of Davis. In essence, Davis Joint Unified would trade BP Equities the Grande Property in exchange for $4.5 million and the Fairfield School.

Coincidentally, this $4.5 million happened to be the same monetary amount that the district lost out on matching funds from the state when they missed the Montgomery Elementary school deadline. Questions have arisen as to whether the speed, urgency, and also secrecy of this deal had something to do with that lost funding.

The land exchange generated a large amount of controversy in the community. Under pressure for the seemingly sub-market value sale price, the offer was raised on November 22, 2005 to $5.5 million and the deal was locked in.

In the meeting when the board rescinded the original sale, Board member Provenza expressed his concerns for the process:

“I have an ethical concern about going forward because I feel that the process from the beginning was flawed. And it’s not because of anything that Mr. [Brian] Purcell [from BP Equities] did, he was negotiating with Tahir Ahad in good faith, but our process I believe was flawed from the beginning."

While that deal was approved by the previous board featuring Ms. West and Ms. Sallee, the newly elected board featuring Gina Daleiden, Sheila Allen, and Tim Taylor joined fellow board member Jim Provenza in rescinding the deal in early 2006, much to the chagrin of Joan Sallee and Marty West, who nearly two years later were raising the issue again last November.

It is interesting to note a letter from the Grande Neighborhood Association still posted on their site from September 2005:

"We also learned that Tahir [Ahad] and B.J. [Kline] were working under the impression that the neighborhood endorsed development of the Grande site for 48 homes (Alternative B that we discussed during the neighborhood meeting and potluck in June). We told him that was not the case - the neighborhood supported the concept of the other alternative, which had 33 homes, and was generally consistent with R-1-6 zoning (like that on the west side of the Grande site)."

Note the lack of communication between the two parties. Also note the fact that the district and neighborhood ended up splitting the difference in density right down the middle, with the neighborhood making it a point to give the district last night 41 units which the district wanted quite badly.

Since the time of that letter and the eventual board decision to go ahead with the sale, the district has completely changed its approach. They have met extensively with the Grande Neighborhood Association. They have worked out a deal with the district and the city to develop a 41-unit subdivision which reflects the basic density of the surrounding neighborhood.

Several neighbors came up and raised minor concerns with the plan but were thankful to the district for working with them on their concerns. The biggest concern was the safety issue of bikes pouring out onto Grande Avenue.

So the city council moved one of the lots, lot #9 it was called, which sat on the outside of the development. They agreed to turn that lot into a community gardens in order to allow bike traffic to flow there rather than through the more heavily traveled Mercedes Road which would flow into the new subdivision.

By working with the city, the district helped the neighbors to identify a longstanding safety issue. There are still some details that need to be worked out, but the neighbors are comfortable enough with the process and the commitment of both the city and DJUSD to addressing them, that the project has been moved forward and fast tracked.

One of the issues still be resolved is that the school district would like to prioritize affordable units for their own employees. That will have to take place by lottery and the district has agreed to indemnify the city should the issue of discrimination come up.

All of these issues should be addressed by January when this comes up for a second reading to the ordinance.

Many involved describe this as a win-win-win scenario for all involved. The school district has worked extensively with the neighbors to produce an acceptable development proposal. The district and city have worked close together rather than against each other as typified the early part of the process where the district tried to pull a shady deal out of fear that the city would invoke the Naylor Act.

Instead what we will see come forward is a fully entitled property that will hit the market. Even given the economic downturn and collapse of the housing market, there is nothing more rare in Davis than fully entitled property. As such, when the district puts it on the market, the selling price will well-exceed the $5.5 million that the district would have gotten had they gone through with the sale. Even at that time, there were credible offers, and the Vanguard has seen these in writing, from credible local developers for as much as $8 to $9 million. They sold it quickly to avoid public scrutiny.

From this standpoint alone and from the standpoint of working with the neighbors to gain approval, the district has contradicted the complaints of its two former board members.

But in all likelihood, the district will get far more than the $5.5 million. A prospective owner will quickly recognize that they do not have to build immediately, but rather they can buy the property and wait for the right market. The value is that they know this is Davis property and that the land is fully entitled and they only need to go ahead with the development agreement to make a huge profit.

It is a winning solution for all involved and shows the value of transparency and cooperation. This is the model now for how to do business whereas the previous process was the very model for how not to do business.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Supervisor-elect Jim Provenza Hires Staff

Special to the Vanguard

Jim Provenza, Yolo County Supervisor - Elect for the 4th District announced today that he is appointing Gina Daleiden to serve as Deputy County Supervisor. Sandra Rodriguez will continue as Assistant Deputy.

Daleiden is currently employed as the Assistant Deputy to Supervisor Helen Thomson and is President of the Davis School Board. Daleiden is a Davis native and a 4th District resident in South Davis. Provenza and Daleiden previously served together on the Davis School Board.

Provenza stated, “I am pleased to be working with Gina again. She is a brilliant public servant who will work tirelessly on behalf of residents of the 4th District and Yolo County. She will represent my office on committee assignments, work closely with county departments, and serve as a vital link between 4th District Residents and County government.

“I’m excited to work in my home District for Supervisor Provenza,” said Daleiden, “We worked well together on the School Board, and I welcome the new challenges and opportunities ahead.”

Elected to the 4th Supervisorial District in June of this year, Provenza will be sworn into office on Monday, January 5 at noon in a public ceremony in the atrium of the Yolo County Administration Building in Woodland. Formerly the Davis School Board President, Provenza will replace former 4th District Supervisor and newly elected Assemblywoman, Mariko Yamada.

According to Supervisor Helen Thomson, “Gina will have new opportunities and challenges in the lead Deputy position, and I support and encourage her move to this new position. She is well prepared to serve Supervisor-elect Provenza in his first term.

Daleiden adds that, “Supervisor Thomson is a mentor and a friend, and I am happy that I will continue to work with her and her office. I’m thankful to both Supervisor Thomson and her deputy, Laura Bibelheimer, for all they have taught me about county government.”

Sandra Rodriguez, current District 4 Assistant Deputy, will continue in her position. During her tenure as Assistant Deputy to Mariko Yamada, Rodriguez gained a reputation as a hardworking advocate for the citizens of the 4th District and has been of particular assistance to Spanish speaking residents. Ms. Rodriguez stated, “I am happy to be able to help with the transition, and I look forward to working for our constituents and continuing to help the office run smoothly.”

Commentary: A look into the 4th Supervisorial Distrct Race

On Friday, it was announced that Jim Provenza had won the 4th Supervisorial district race outright garnering 54 votes over the needed 50 percent in order to avoid a November runoff election. Mr. Provenza received 4,065 votes or 50.7 percent, easily outdistancing John Ferrera's 2,739. Cathy Kennedy finished third with 15.2% or 1,217 votes. He will replace the likely Assemblywoman from this district, Mariko Yamada who won the Democratic Nomination on Tuesday in a district that is heavily Democratic.

The first time I really got to know Jim Provenza was in January of 2007. I met with him in his office in Sacramento to convey to him my concerns about the District's handling of the harassment of a junior high school student due to the fact that the student had two male parents.

Jim Provenza at that time acknowledged shortcoming in the district's response while at the same time not directly commenting on the matter due in part to it being a matter dealing with personnel and in part it being a mater that dealt with a juvenile. What he did do is lay out proposed changes in the discipline code.

In short, he told me everything I wanted to hear. But as many people also know, many politicians will tell you everything you want to hear and then fall flat when it comes to follow through.

But when the meeting in question came forward, not only did Jim Provenza do everything that he said he would do, he went above and beyond that.

There came a point when then-Superintendent David Murphy seemed to be hedging, dragging his feet, and attempting to water down the new language. In response, Jim Provenza pressed him, and forcefully got him to put the language into the new discipline code that would have actual teeth and be unequivocal.

It was watching Jim Provenza operate at that meeting that earned my respect.

Last summer, the county Board of Supervisors and the city of Davis nearly came to blows over proposed development on Davis' City edge. Over 100 Davis residents packed a mid-July meeting. Jim Provenza was there as well, criticizing the plans to build along the I-80 corridor, renaming the proposed "innovation corridor" the "congestion corridor."

While that meeting turned heated, Jim Provenza actually has a pretty good record of turning such relations around. The city of Davis and the School District had very tense relations for a number of years.

As we discussed earlier this year, the King High and Grande problems in part resulted from lack of trust and lack of cooperation. At King High, the city and district disputed over what to do with three large trees. Ultimately, the district accidentally (or so they claim) severed the root structure. Moreover, the district was surprised to learn of a storm drain in the middle of the King High site, something that Bill Emlen politely remarked at the time would have been evident had the district consulted with the city planners. Finally, the footprint of the school encroached on city property, something else that would have been noted had there been some sort of dialogue between the two bodies.

Grande was much the same situation. The district embarked upon a highly secretive sale of the site that involved a land swap and an under-valued sale price due to misplaced concerns about the city imposing the Naylor Act and taking the land for below market value. Jim Provenza and a new board led the way to stopping that sale and exploring other options. Since then the city and district have worked extensively to help subdivide the land and sell it as fully entitled property. They also worked with the neighbors to ensure that their concerns were dealt with. As a result, the district will make more money on the sale and they will do so knowing that they do not have to worry about the city imposing the Naylor Act on them.

What we have seen since 2006 is unprecedented cooperation between the city and the school district, to their mutual benefit. It is this type of relationship and background that the city and county need. In many ways, it will be very possible given the dynamics of the current board of supervisors.

When the Davis Enterprise surprisingly endorsed John Ferrera over Jim Provenza one of the thing they cited was that Ferrera

"pledged to help repair interagency relationships, believing Davis and the county can both be better neighbors, and he promises to lead all parties in working together toward well-understood, collective goals."

It is an interesting point because John Ferrera had no track record, but Jim Provenza had actually succeeded in doing that with the city and school district.

He also helped the school district get on firmer ground fiscally. He led the way in helping to get rid of Tahir Ahad whose risky strategies and poor management, not to mention his blatant conflicts of interest, put the district in grave jeopardy. Meanwhile Former Superintendent David Murphy allowed much of this to happen under his watch, not only failing to intercede in the district's better interest, but he continued to support both Tahir Ahad and his policies. To this day, he calls Ahad the finest CBO he has worked with.

With Ahad and Murphy gone, the district with the help of Jim Provenza and others was able to recoup the lost funding for Montgomery. They then embarked upon hiring a new superintendent, who they found in James Hammond--a young and energetic leader for the school district.

Provenza's legacy on the board did produce some notable enemies. Marty West, who now works for Ahad, has been a harsh critic of Provenza, writing a scathing letter that circulated in part of the community. The former Superintendent David Murphy was reportedly walking Precincts for John Ferrera.

This was unfortunate. John Ferrera had little to do with the school issues and yet his campaign was dragged into some of it. At least part of this has to fall on Mr. Ferrera's shoulders, he was made aware of this baggage some time ago, and yet continued to allow himself to be surrounded with people whose agenda was less to help Ferrera than to hurt Jim Provenza.

While I did not formally endorse Jim Provenza, nor do I live in his district, I think his policies are a better fit for the fourth district and I also think the board of supervisors as a whole will benefit from his expertise.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Update: Jim Provenza's Election Finalized

I received word late yesterday, that the remaining ballots had been counted by the Yolo County Election's Office and that Jim Provenza's vote total actually went up slightly and remained over 50%. Mr. Provenza informed me that his challenger John Ferrera had graciously conceded to him.

On Wednesday night, I had a conversation with Jim Provenza on KDRT 101.5 FM. We talked about a wide range of subjects including his election and the surprising Assembly Campaign.

If you would like to listen to that broadcast click here and select the June 4 show.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Incumbents Wins in Council; Saylor New Mayor; Stunners in Assembly and Supervisor

It was not a good night either for me or the Progressives in the Davis City Council Election. Don Saylor was the top vote getter, meaning he is Mayor Pro Tem and will be Mayor in 2010. Stephen Souza finished a close second. Sue Greenwald was re-elected to a third term but finished a rather distant third. Sydney Vergis was fourth. Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Rob Roy wrapped things up.

We will have a more thorough analysis, but Sue won by finishing third in an all-incumbent vote in a number of precincts as well as heading up the more traditional progressive vote in the core, although her coat tails were not there. Sydney Vergis was the true third vote for Souza and Saylor, never finishing above third in any precinct.

Frankly, the bigger news was in the Assembly, where Mariko Yamada who looked down and out just a month ago, surged late to a narrow but decisive victory over Mayor Christopher Cabaldon who had managed to attract the support of most of the Democratic officeholders and the three predecessors at Assembly However, Mayor Cabaldon who had a large war chest and an even larger support from EdVoice, may overplayed his hand. Meanwhile the unions came in, spent half a million, and then just plain out organized the seemingly well-organized Cabaldon machine.

Mariko Yamada won in both counties by over 3%. She won almost all of Davis and surprisingly almost all of Woodland while Cabaldon won in his hometown of West Sacramento. Around three weeks ago I started to hear residents who had been supporting Cabaldon grow concerned with the large amount of mailers being thrown around. Yamada's IEs went on the attack. And when EdVoice responded with largely false attack ads it seemed to backfire. When Yamada was ahead after the absentee count it seemed all over (and it largely was).

Meanwhile equally stunning was the victory by Jim Provenza over two candidates. The shocker here was not that the former school member finished first, that seemed a foregone conclusion given the way the last few weeks worked out. What was really stunning was that he could get over 50% in a three-candidate field and avoid a costly and heated November runoff. But he too had over 50% in the absentees and stayed that way throughout the night, finishing a seemingly safe 50.5%.

Provenza was by far the best known of the candidates entering the race, but John Ferrera seemed to have seized the momentum early this year. He outraised Provenza. Beat him out for support from the Capital. But the one thing he could not do was get key labor endorsements. Provenza was able to close the gap on money and then the IEs took over and dumped a huge amount into the race. Kennedy finished at a respectable 15%, about where we thought given her stature.

So Jim Provenza represents the big victory for the beleaguered progressive left in Davis. It is hard to figure if Yamada's victory is a blow from the progressives, many of who were angered by her stance on county growth. And the Council race was a huge disappointed despite Sue Greenwald hanging on for a third term.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

County Supervisor Hopefuls Meet in League of Women Voters' Candidates Forum

Just a few days before the June 3, 2008 election and for the first time, the three county supervisor candidates met for a candidates forum moderated by Jean Canary of the Davis League of Women Voters. This is the only chance fourth district residents would get a chance to see the candidates square off. There was a decent crowd of mostly the usual suspects in attendance, but the event was televised on Cable Channel 15 throughout the community, a telecast that should be replayed a few times for those who missed it.

Each candidate got four minutes to make an opening statement and answer the three prepared questions.

John Ferrera in his opening statement talked about his commitment to preserving Davis as the special place that it is. He then went on to talk about both his community experience on the library board for six years and his professional experience in Sacramento most recently as Chief of Staff to State Senator Denise Ducheney. He is proud of his endorsements from County Supervisors Helen Thomson and Mike McGowan, Sheriff Ed Prieto, former County Supervisor Betsy Marchand, DA Jeff Reisig, and Davis Councilmember Stephen Souza and Ruth Asmundson. He said that he felt we need leadership in this county, and that is not about waiting to see which way the wind is blowing. He has worked on issues that he will face as a member of the Board of Supervisors in the next four years. He looks to turn problems into opportunities in order to meet challenges.

Jim Provenza talked about how his career was based on the notion that he would go out and help the poor and disenfranchised rather than trying to make a lot of money. As a result, early in his career, he represented victims of housing and employment discrimination. He related a story about how they cut the budget for his job and he went to work for free continuing to help people until the funding was restored. He looked toward maximum jurisprudence--for all wrongs there is a remedy and he has sought through his career to fix the wrongs. He is proud of the four years he served on the school board. He talked about working hard to lift up and represent low achieving students, particularly Hispanic students, and that his work helped to increase scores. This he was particularly proud of. He cited his record as an assistant to the Los Angeles District Attorney's office and his enforcement of environmental laws for other counties that could not afford to fight their own cases. He wants to take the same values to the Board of Supervisors in Yolo County. His vision is to preserve Yolo County as an agricultural county, to build a strong agricultural economy and to be a model for other counties.

Cathy Kennedy talked about herself as being a business woman from the private sector, and having a very different set of attributes from the men to her right. She is a high school drop out from a dysfunctional home. In this election, instead of being ashamed of that background, she has put this to the forefront. She said it takes grit and perseverance to rise up from poverty. She learned that she have to give in order to feel better. She had a teen daughter at 18, and she never married. In 2005, she took an estranged relative's child. She called that child who was 14 and he wanted to know about his other two siblings. When she told him that she could not take on three kids, he offered up his youngest sibling. She eventually took the three kids. From that perspective she saw the county from the side of someone who received services and she said that we are not getting what we think we are getting, the social services program is not what we think it is. These things need to change.

The first question related to the pass-through agreement and whether it was sufficient to protect the county.

Jim Provenza said the pass-through agreement is not simply about the shifting of revenue. Rather it is an agreement through the city and county, to preserve agricultural land. Davis' planning area includes the best farmland in the area. The pass-through agreement gives the county redevelopment funds in exchange for them to not develop in the Davis planning area. During the entire period of the pass-through the amount is roughly $84 million which is not an insignificant total. It preserves our way of life in Yolo County and encourages growth within cities. It discourages sprawl development. We are losing thousands of acres of farmland each year in California--up to a half million acres. Once paved over, that farmland is forever lost. Agriculture is the strength of our economy. We need to fight to keep the pass-through agreement in effect. We can always look to update it, the last update was in 2001. We need to work together between the city and county to make sure we protect agriculture. In fact, he said there are provisions within the agreement to work together and consult when issues arise. City and county need to work together to support development and growth that fits the needs of both jurisdictions while preserving the pass-through agreement.

Cathy Kennedy said that while she agrees with much of what Jim Provenza said, she does not think the pass-through agreement is sufficient. She does not know if the county needs are being served at present by the agreement. While she respects city rights, she said that the county also needs to serve its constituents and act in terms of what the county needs are. And the county is in a budget crisis at present and needs to look toward generating revenue.

John Ferrera cited the pass-through as a tremendous example of cooperation between the city and county. It was first entered into by Betsy Marchand and Dave Rosenberg as a way to preserve services from the county while at the same time allowing Davis a decision on growth on its periphery. Originally this was based on an economic study on the cost to the county for providing services and a method for relieving the pressure on the county to seek housing for revenue. Cooperation is an important thing about this relationship. We need to insure revenue from the pass-through agreement is sufficient to keep the city of Davis from losing services. He thinks this protection is important, but we need a cooperative relationship that includes dialogue, consultation, and cooperation.

Next the candidates were asked about the current budget crisis and which programs were a priority to protect.

Cathy Kennedy said that we need to protect the alcohol, drug, and mental health department. She said this service is essential and needs to be improved. She also cited law enforcement and the Sheriff's Department as a high priority. During a bad economy, we are likely to suffer from more crime. She then shifted focus to longer term issues and said that we need to bring in more business to produce business revenue for the county and create more jobs.

John Ferrera argued that there was not enough money at any level of government. We need to protect direct services to people particularly seniors, children, mentally ill, and people who serve them directly. We need to build a strong reserve during good times to avoid these problems. We must do business differently in this county. Some departments such as public works and economic development have too little resources. He wants to look at ways to combine these two to improve both. He wants to preserve agricultural land by building jobs and revenue. He wants to add value to the agricultural products. We need to do a better job of supporting farmers here so that they do not have to truck their product out of the county and use our roads and consume gas and oil. Finally we need to invest in green technology as a means for both revenue and jobs.

Jim Provenza said that the short term is the most difficult and that we need to protect elderly, low income, and public safety. He said it is important to look at how we got to this point. He cited problems with poor management in some of the county departments like the housing authority and mental health. He said one of the reasons Yolo County is having a problem is that the state balances its budget on the backs of counties, and small counties get hit the hardest. He advocates for a fairer state budget which can enhance revenue to the counties when necessary. He talked about the fact that the state often will make cuts during tough times but not raise it again when revenues increase. He would like to see Yolo County join the rural caucus as a means to work with other rural counties toward harvesting revenues and funds. We also need to look toward longer term development--he emphasizes economic development and particularly environmentally sustainable agriculture. We need to look at which crops will do well in the future. We need to work with the university and regionally. The water supply is a big concern particularly since global climate change may produce less water. Finally we need to get a fair share of state and local revenues.

The third and final prepared question dealt with protecting the environment, meeting housing needs, and urban development in small and rural areas.

John Ferrera talked about the fact that the county has a tradition of growing near urban centers in order to preserve agricultural land. We do have the legal responsibility to take some growth, to do it efficiently in a way that respects farmland and the environment. He has worked with agencies that have done excellent long-term planning. He wants to produce revenue that will enable the preservation of habitat, smart and infill growth around transportation hubs. He wants to protect the environment and to insure that we also protect prime agricultural land. Small communities need to preserve their nature.

Jim Provenza talked about how not to manage growth and discussed communities where the cities have merged together and one cannot tell where one ends and another begins without a sign. He wants to consider growth around cities. He wants growth as infill and in incorporated areas to avoid sprawl. The creation of new communities such as Dunnigan, which is a small area that may become a future city. We need to look at where these developments occur and plan for housing, jobs, and transportation simultaneously so that the people who live there do not automatically have to commute 50 miles to Sacramento in order to go to work. He wants to avoid creating urban islands that are isolated and require transportation and commuting. He has a bias toward allowing the cities to be the ones that develop housing and engage in urban planning. He wants the county to work in cooperation and to be a partner. It must have mutual benefits. He believes that there should be an emphasis on incorporated areas because many unincorporated areas have higher costs in terms of services and are not as well maintained.

Cathy Kennedy believes we should allow unincorporated and small areas to grow. They deserve to have some development so that they might become future incorporated cities of their own. She cautioned about creating hubs around the county. She however is in favor of protecting agricultural land as these places are not replaceable. She said we do not need to sell out to developers. She would be fine with building 10,000 more homes and then stopping.

Then there were a series of short questions and a wrap. I just briefly summarize some key points.

They were asked about raising local property taxes and sales taxes. Cathy Kennedy said she was not in favor of raising taxes in a downturned economy, she would look to shore up inefficiencies first. Jim Provenza cited the difficulty of raising property taxes due to Proposition 13. He said it was a last option but cannot take it off the table. We need to spend money wisely, ensure that we do not waste it, and take care of the people in our community whether they are kids, poor, and the elderly. John Ferrera said that when you do budgets you have to make hard decisions. You need to make sure the county works efficiently. Some programs are good when have lots of funding, but in tough times you have to pick some things like schools over other programs.

In their wrap up John Ferrera said that he is running because he believes in providing for people. He believes we can protect agricultural land and still do all of the other things we want. We can lead the world rather than have the world forced on us. We need to do more long term planning and be proactive. We need to provide for ourselves and not rely on other governments. We should not have to rely on Bay Area growth and other growth to drive our policies.

Jim Provenza talked about not having to make false choices, that we do not have to choose between environmental protection, agriculture and growth. Talked about the improvement with relations with the city when he was on the school board and wants to see the same for the county and the city.

Cathy Kennedy talks about integrity, honor, follow through and dealing even-handedly with everyone as her qualities. She said it is important that she has garnered the support of law enforcement. She cites the DPOA, the Yolo County Deputy Sheriffs, and PORAC as key supporters. Nothing is important unless people are safe. No one wants to be here unless they are safe.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

A look at the 4th Supervisorial Race

The Sacramento Bee this morning ran their graphic again, this time for the Yolo County Supervisor races. The three questions they asked did not produce the kind of neat disparity that the Davis City Council election questions did earlier this month.

All three candidates want to protect agricultural land while looking to find businesses that support a farm economy. There is a bit more diversity of opinions on the issue of city-county relations. John Ferrera wants to form a "cooperative long-term plan." Cathy Kennedy wants to form a "commission of representatives" from all cities. Jim Provenza looks first at the right of cities to plan their own growth and development. Finally the issue of water rights comes up. Here Cathy Kennedy has the strongest statement where she wants to enforce the ordinance that forbids exporting ground water out of the county instead of the current proposal for well regulation. Whereas both Ferrera and Provenza talk in more general terms about the need for conservation.

Click here to read the graphic from the Sacramento Bee

Recall last fall the Vanguard was able to interview both Ferrera and Provenza. At that time, Cathy Kennedy was not in the race.

Click here to read Ferrera's interview

Click here to read Provenza's interview

This Thursday, the League of Women Voters is putting on the first candidate's forum, it takes place at 7 PM at the Davis Community Chambers.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Woodland Daily Democrat Endorses Kennedy or Provenza for Yolo County Supervisor

The Woodland Daily Democrat came out with their endorsements for County Supervisor yesterday. Not surprisingly they endorsed incumbent Supervisor Duane Chamberlain for a second term. Duane Chamberlain is someone we rarely talk about, but there is no stronger defender of farmers and agricultural land on the board than Mr. Chamberlain. He is a man of integrity whether you agree with him on a current issue or you disagree with him. Chamberlain is running against the largely unknown Mel Smith. This does not figure to be much of a race.

The more surprising endorsement was in the 4th Supervisorial race where the seat is open and the race is wide open. There are three candidates vying for that seat--Jim Provenza, Cathy Kennedy, and John Ferrera.

Jim Provenza has locked down the endorsement of the Sacramento Bee. John Ferrera has the endorsement of the Davis Enterprise. And Cathy Kennedy who is largely unknown has secured some impressive endorsements including Duane Chamberlain. She also has the Davis Police Officer's Association, District Attorney Jeff Reisig, and the Yolo County Sheriff's Deputy Association.

In this race the Woodland Daily Democrat surprisingly chose both Jim Provenza and Cathy Kennedy.

"In this Davis district, the choices are difficult. Both Provenza and Kennedy are the more appealing candidates in our opinion. Provenza has experience on the Davis School Board, a difficult job in and of itself.

Kennedy, however, is a single mother who grew up in poverty, worked her way through school, and has become successful in the business world. In many ways it would be good to have such a representative from Davis.

We think either Provenza or Kennedy would be a good fit on the Board of Supervisors. Both are experienced in their own right."

I am not certain I like their rationale for endorsing Ms. Kennedy especially the part where they said, "In many ways it would be good to have such a representative from Davis" referring either to her business background or the fact that she is a former single mother. I will say however, that she is much more impressive than I expected her to be. And while at this point she still rates as a long shot, I hope that she decides to stay involved in government and the community because she does offer a very different perspective from others in this race.

The Daily Democrat endorsement is probably not going to have a huge impact on this race. The most interesting aspect of it was the fact that they endorsed either Provenza or Kennedy in the race. That leaves John Ferrera. I am not sure if I am more surprised that John Ferrera is the odd person out or that they endorsed Jim Provenza.

This is one where it might be interesting to hear. After all, the conservative Woodland paper not choosing the chief of staff to the chairman of the state Senate budget committee might not be all that shocking except for the fact that Provenza's job is not all that different in the eyes of the Democrat--a lobbyist for the Los Angeles district attorney. Then again, Provenza has experience on the Davis School Board and a strong record there which may overshadow his profession in their eyes.

This is one where it might be curious to know what the thinking was.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Greenwald and Escamilla-Greenwald Receive "A" Grades from the Sierra Club

In a press release dated May 16, 2008, the Sierra Club Yolano Group issued grades of the Davis City Council candidates.

"Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Sue Greenwald rated an “A” grade based on answers to the three questions. Rob Roy, Don Saylor, Steven Souza and Sydney Vergis all received “B” grades."

On April 30, 2008 the Sierra Club Yolano Group and the Davis Neighborhood Coalition submitted 10 questions to Davis City Council candidates. In addition to the candidate forum, each candidate submitted written answers.

"The Management Committee “graded” the candidates based on their responses to the questions that related to the environment. The Sierra Club Yolano Group spent much time deliberating regarding the relative grading of the candidates for this 2008 City of Davis City Council election cycle. In general, the management committee believes that the educational value of the candidates’ answers to the questions - both for the voters and for the candidates is the most valuable portion of this process.

The three main issues discussed in the grading process were: Measure J, Wastewater and Surface Water Capitol Projects, and the future of wood burning in the City of
Davis.

Each candidate received the range of grades available and the final grades that we are presenting are the average of the management committee's votes - not a unanimous grade. This is not a Sierra Club endorsement of any of the candidates."

Vanguard coverage of the candidates forum can be found by clicking here.

You can find excerpts of the answers on both water and Measure J there.

On the issue of residential wood burning, an issue that has not been discussed much on this blog but is becoming an increasing concern in the city due to its impact on air quality, here are some of the highlights of the candidate's answers.

Sue Greenwald:

"I am in favor of looking into an ordinance for banning wood burning."

Cecilia-Escamilla Greenwald:

"As councilmember, I would like to look toward alternative means by which to heat homes—including Natural gas fireplaces rather than real wood or ideally, more energy efficient building designs to better utilize the winter sun, better keep heat (or cool temperatures in the summer) in the home, and solar power as an alternative means by which to heat one’s home or augment other available energy sources.

I would consider a possible ban or limitation of wood burning pending further study by the city and other experts."

Rob Roy:

"We already have the voluntary “Don’t Light Tonight" program in Yolo-Solano air quality management district. We must inform our fellow citizens about the program so they may now when air levels are at unhealthy levels. Expand the conscious of our citizens be more aware of any negative environmental impact is a good thing.

Collecting a voluntary city-wide email list serve to convey this type of information would be a good thing start on."

Don Saylor:

"While I want to withhold judgment until hearing from the NRC, I think we will probably see a combination of further restrictions on burning using specific appliances, incentives and rebates for purchases of cleaner EPA appliances, and more awareness of the issues pertaining to wood burning and the environmental effects."

Stephen Souza:

"There are already restrictions in place on new construction and new installation of fire-places or wood burning appliances. The Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District's Rule 2.40 requires the use of pellet fueled heater or EPA certified heaters. We should also require that at the time of sale, remodel or a certain date that all fireplaces that do not meet Rule 2.40 be replaced or rendered inoperable.

We can also promote a self-imposed program of “Don’t Light Tonight” whereby residents do not use their fire-places or woodstoves when air pollution is approaching unhealthy conditions."

Sydney Vergis:

"The Model Fireplace Ordinance include two primary components- Voluntary curtailment of wood-burning on low quality air days, and a mandatory upgrade to EPA Phase II Fireplace inserts or fireplace removal upon house sale or remodel.

I acknowledge that the voluntary components of the model ordinance or a Spare-the-Air day will not result in full compliance- I am hopeful that good outreach and coordination between the City, local organizations (Yolano!), and the Natural Resources Commission can pay dividends."

While the Sierra Club did not make endorsements in the city council race, the grades provided are a good guide as to which candidates were stronger on specific environmental positions than others. The Sierra Club did make endorsements in both the County Supervisor and the State Assembly race. (See here for full story). Jim Provenza obtained the endorsement in the 4th District County Supervisor Race and Christopher Cabaldon received the endorsement in the State Assembly Race.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Sacramento Bee Endorses Jim Provenza for Yolo County Supervisor

Two years ago, there was not much difference between the endorsements of the Davis Enterprise and the endorsements of the Sacramento Bee. In the key races that impacted Davis, both endorsed Ruth Asmundson and Mike Levy for Davis City Council and Jeff Reisig for District Attorney. So when the Davis Enterprise earlier endorsed the pro-growth slate for City Council and John Ferrera for County Supervisor, we figured it was only a matter of time before the Sacramento Bee followed suit.

In reality, while the Sacramento Bee remains on the side of those candidates on the issue of growth, to their credit, they have looked beyond the growth issue when making endorsements. Hence Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Sue Greenwald were able to gain the endorsement for city council and now Jim Provenza has been endorsed for County Supervisor.

The Bee writes:

"The 4th District includes a big chunk of the city of Davis, the heart of the slow-growth movement in the county. When Yolo supervisors even dared to discuss the possibility of permitting a housing development attached to a much-coveted stem cell research facility proposed on county land at the edge of Davis, activists threatened a recall campaign. It's just one indication of how careful the 4th District supervisor must be in approaching this issue.

Yolo supervisors have rightly fought to prevent development on the county's agricultural lands and steer growth into cities. All the candidates promise to protect the county's agricultural resources. All agree that some growth is needed to ensure the county does not stagnate economically.

But as important as growth issues are, Yolo's most pressing issue in the county's precarious finances. A few years ago, county employees were forced to take furloughs. With the county facing a $5.9 million projected deficit this year, employees are being asked to take voluntary leaves."

So why do they pick in the end Jim Provenza? "As a member of the Davis School Board Jim Provenza has the deeper, more expansive experience with local government."

The Bee actually likes all three candidates, but in a close decision decided to endorse Jim Provenza.

As the Vanguard wrote in response to the Enterprises endorsement:

John Ferrera is a good person, on statewide issues and national and international issues, there is probably very little if anything on which we disagree. However, as this race has gone on, it has become clear to me that he is in the other camp on local land use issues which remain the key hallmark of the County Supervisor race.

Recently, both candidates were asked about land use issues. Jim Provenza was publicly against Covell Village. John Ferrera has recently acknowledged he was for Covell Village, although according to my sources he has also stated his opposition to it.

Second, Jim Provenza strongly supports Measure J. John Ferrera took more of the Don Saylor position, the public likes it, but he was less succinct about his view.

Third, when the county threatened to develop on Davis' periphery, Jim Provenza came to the meeting in July and argued strongly against such development. He referred to the proposed developments along I-80 as the congestion corridor. John Ferrera as far as I can tell was not at that meeting and certainly did not speak at that meeting.

While both candidates promise to handle city-county relations better than they were handled in 2007, only Jim Provenza has flat out supported the pass-through agreement.

When I interview John Ferrera last fall here was his response to a question of would he support the current pass-through agreement:

"The pass-through agreement is twenty years old. It’s only received minor updates and discussions and I think that the changing relationship between the state and the counties and the state and the cities, with the growth of the university, with other things that have happened in our world that have changed over 20 years, that we really need to take a hard look and make sure that it’s doing what it need to do for the county and for the city."

While Cathy Kennedy clearly needs to gain some experience with local government, she could become a very formidable candidate down the line. She has a level of sincerity and infectious enthusiasm that serve her well and tend to win people over.

This race is likely going to November with Jim Provenza and John Ferrera squaring off. Cathy Kennedy however has impressed a number of people along the way and could become a player in deciding who wins in November.

Meanwhile, the Sacramento Bee has now endorsed the three slow growth candidates in Davis with the best prospects for winning. It was "stunning" (for lack of a better word) to see the Davis Enterprise overlook the experience of people like Jim Provenza when they made their endorsement. The Sacramento Bee fortunately has not replicated that mistake.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Christopher Cabaldon and Jim Provenza Endorsed by the Sierra Club

This week Assembly Candidate Christopher Cabaldon and Yolo County Supervisor Candidate Jim Provenza earned the endorsement of the Sierra Club, one of the seminal environmental organizations in the country.

The organization cited Cabaldon's role in the development of the SACOG Blueprint Project. He has also sat on the Central Valley Water Board and consistently has taken strong positions to protect water quality.

Christopher Cabaldon wrote on his website:

"Our district is unique in how much we value our special natural heritage, open spaces, farmland, rolling hills, creeks, and the Delta, and how committed we are to environmental protection and sustainability, as well as clean air and water.

That's why I'm so proud to report that the Sierra Club has now endorsed my candidacy."

He went on to say:

"The Sierra Club only grants its endorsement in a handful of legislative races, and only after a grassroots vote of confidence by the progressive environmental activists working at the local level inside the district."

Delta Protection is one of the most important environmental issues in this district, along with transportation emissions, and protection of agricultural land.

"They know how important it is that we win our fight to rescue the Delta, tackle the causes and impacts of climate change (including my national battle against the Bush Administration on vehicle emission standards), stop pollution of our air and water, put an end to sprawl and the disappearance of our rural legacy, and make trains, transit, biking, and walking real alternatives to more time in our cars. And they know I will continue to be an environmental champion in the Assembly."

For the Yolo County Supervisors race, the Sierra Club acknowledged that both candidates have demonstrated a strong environmental commitment.

The deciding issue revolved around a proposed initiative for Yolo County to protect agricultural land and to continue to limit development to existing cities.

Jim Provenza was a strong advocate against the proposed developments on the periphery of the city of Davis. He opposed Covell Village. And strongly supports Measure J. He vowed to support an initiative at the county level similar to Measure J, according to the Sierra Club.

It is nice to see that land use policies were used as the basis for a Sierra Club endorsement. Too often the protection of agricultural land and defense against peripheral development are overlooked. But from an environmental standpoint, once you pave over farmland, it is lost. I was talking to someone the other day who was raised in what was known as the Santa Clara Valley before it became known as the Silicon Valley. Some may remember that those were some of the best soils in the state and they are now permanently lost by urbanization and sprawl development.

It is a bit disappointing that the Sierra Club apparently will not be endorsing in the Davis City Council race.


Sydney Vergis endorses herself

Could not resist adding this here. This one jumped out at me last night. There is an organization known as the Yolo County Young Democrats. It is a small group that has little to no background. Sometime at the end of last year or the beginning of this year, Sydney Vergis became the President or Director, not sure which, of this organization. There is no web presence so it is difficult to ascertain just how many members there are of this group, but I've heard there are six including the chair.

In the Enterprise last night, Sydney Vergis announced that she had obtained the endorsement of the group that she heads up. I should hope so. Next thing you know, Cecilia will be sending out a press release saying that the Vanguard has endorsed her. Maybe people have not heard, I am married to Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald. Oh and despite what the Davis Enterprise said last year, I am not married to Sue Greenwald.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Clean Sweep of Support for Developer Candidates by the Enterprise

It would be appalling if it were not so predictable. On Sunday, the Davis Enterprise endorsed the pro-development slate for the Davis City Council. Yesterday, in perhaps an even more shocking move, the Davis Enterprise has endorsed John Ferrera over Jim Provenza for the 4th Supervisorial District.

They admit that Ferrara "is a relative newcomer to Davis." In fact, he's a newcomer to Davis politics. Indeed, they have selected Ferrera over a much more experienced public servant who recently finished a four year stint on the Davis School Board. But there is nary a word on that in the editorial--in fact, Jim Provenza is not mentioned at all in the editorial.

The Enterprise writes:

"Budget challenges will be paramount as California - and, by extension, its 58 counties - learns to live within its means. Ferrera's experience as chief of staff to state Sen. Denise Ducheny, chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee, gives him keen insight into the challenges Yolo County faces as it tightens its belt to the tune of $12 million."

As school board member Jim Provenza has had to deal with school budgets for the last four years. I certainly do not see anything in their records that would give John Ferrera insight over Jim Provenza.

"He's pledged to help repair interagency relationships, believing Davis and the county can both be better neighbors, and he promises to lead all parties in working together toward well-understood, collective goals."

Because Jim Provenza has not? During Jim Provenza's tenure on the Davis City council the relationship between the city of Davis and the school district improved dramatically. Following the obvious problems with the city following the debacle of King High and the ill-fated Grande deal, Jim Provenza led the way to make changes to district policies.

He brought in a new Superintendent and a new Budget Director. He and his colleagues would work with the city on the planning of both the Grande Property and Nugget Fields to insure cooperation rather than the secretive nature in which King High was planned and demolished without city input. This led to an overlap of the structure onto city property, the surprise discovery of a storm drain, and the destruction of cherished community trees.

As school board member, Jim Provenza became alarmed at the conflict of interests surrounding the operations of CBO Tahir Ahad. In the first two years on the board, he was routinely out-voted 4-1 or 3-2 regarding such issues. However, in the final two years, he helped to draft the language of the conflict of interest code, so that such conflicts would never arise again.

Unfortunately, the Davis Enterprise does not do justice to Jim Provenza's record as a school board member.

But Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning does.

Back in March of 2007 Dunning writes:

"RUN, JIM , RUN … while it's still early and many names are being tossed about as possible candidates, if Jim Provenza decides to run for county supervisor, as expected, the rest of those considering a shot at working in Woodland would be best advised to take a pass … no point in forming an exploratory committee, dipping your big toe in the water or launching a trial balloon … all exercises in futility …

Forget the politics, forget the potential issues, forget what your mama taught you about seizing the day, if Provenza runs, he's a lock … no one else is even close … like Helen Thomson, one of the most revered political figures in this town's history, Provenza has never been a candidate for City Council, which means his reputation remains untarnished … put simply, his solid-citizen, agenda-less work on the Davis school board makes him hard — if not impossible — to beat …"

A few days ago, Dunning reiterate that confidence:

"Provenza is the runaway favorite in a campaign that has attracted little or no media attention to this point … I rest my case … since Jim leads the field in name ID, he probably hopes this remains a low-profile race right to the finish … no matter your politics, Jim 's a hard guy not to like …"

Apparently Mr. Dunning ought to talk to his bosses a bit more.

John Ferrera is a good person, on statewide issues and national and international issues, there is probably very little if anything on which we disagree. However, as this race has gone on, it has become clear to me that he is in the other camp on local land use issues which remain the key hallmark of the County Supervisor race.

Recently, both candidates were asked about land use issues. Jim Provenza was publicly against Covell Village. John Ferrera has recently acknowledged he was for Covell Village, although according to my sources he has also stated his opposition to it.

Second, Jim Provenza strongly supports Measure J. John Ferrera took more of the Don Saylor position, the public likes it, but he was less succinct about his view.

Third, when the county threatened to develop on Davis' periphery, Jim Provenza came to the meeting in July and argued strongly against such development. He referred to the proposed developments along I-80 as the congestion corridor. John Ferrera as far as I can tell was not at that meeting and certainly did not speak at that meeting.

While both candidates promise to handle city-county relations better than they were handled in 2007, only Jim Provenza has flat out supported the pass-through agreement.

When I interview John Ferrera last fall here was his response to a question of would he support the current pass-through agreement:

"The pass-through agreement is twenty years old. It’s only received minor updates and discussions and I think that the changing relationship between the state and the counties and the state and the cities, with the growth of the university, with other things that have happened in our world that have changed over 20 years, that we really need to take a hard look and make sure that it’s doing what it need to do for the county and for the city."

Once again, the Davis Enterprise does the public little service here. They give an endorsement to an individual without much discussion if any of the issues involved in the race. There has been almost no coverage of the race itself. Bob Dunning is absolutely correct that this is an extremely low-profile race. There have been no candidate forums, little newspaper coverage, and almost no way for the public to learn about who these people are.

In fact, the public knows even less about the third candidate for this race, Cathy Kennedy.

However, the Davis Enterprise has at least been consistent on the local races in each case supporting the pro-development candidate, often over more experienced slow-growth candidates.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Where is the race for County Supervisor Going?

A year ago, Jim Provenza was President of the Davis School Board, John Ferrera was a largely unknown chief of Staff for State Senator Denise Ducheney, and Cathy Kennedy, if it is possible was even less known. At that point it looked like Jim Provenza was odds on favorite to win the seat.

But something has happened since then. And actually it largely has happened since January 1, 2008.

Mr. Ferrera has opened up an $18,000 financial lead over his closest rival--$73,000 to $55,000.

The difference has occurred largely since January 1 where Ferrera has added $34,000 to just $12,500 by Mr. Provenza.

Given the relatively large advantage that Jim Provenza still enjoys in name recognition it is not the most alarming factor that his opponent has out raised him. Although the magnitude of the recent money has to be concerning.

The most alarming factor is probably that a lot of the large contributions to John Ferrera have come from organized labor--a group that one would have suspected that Jim Provenza would have held his own. In fact there is no apparent reason why labor should be picking John Ferrera over Jim Provenza--both men have strong ties to Sacramento, although Ferrera is Chief of Staff to the budget chair. Provenza has been regarded by many to be a strong advocate for labor, but some suspect the purse strings attached to the Chair of the Budget Committee maybe influencing the movement towards Ferrera. Moreover, many of those endorsing are building trades who are supporting the candidate widely seen as more in favor of development.

John Ferrera also received a contribution from a Texas oil company--Conoco which would seem like an odd contribution for a County Supervisor campaign.

Meanwhile, Jim Provenza received the unanimous endorsement from the Davis Democratic Club.

At this point, Cathy Kennedy appears to be little more than a spoiler who figures to push this race into November.

That said, she has amassed several interesting endorsements. We have previously reported on the Davis Police Officers Association and Supervisor Matt Rexroad. Now add to those, Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, the Yolo County Sheriff's Officers Association, Supervisor Duane Chamberlain, and Woodland City Councilman Jeff Monroe, who is himself a Sheriff's Deputy.

Of those, I am perhaps a bit surprised to see Duane Chamberlain on there, Chamberlain has been one of the most consistent voices for farmland protection in the county. And while Ms. Kennedy has vowed to uphold the pass-through agreement on residential development, she has suggested she would support county imposed-peripheral development for commercial ventures.

The Vanguard had Jim Provenza on its radio show on KDRT last week. <Listen to it here>. We are working to get John Ferrera and Cathy Kennedy on as well.

At this point, it seems that this race is destined for a November runoff, the question is who will have the advantage at that point.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Who is Cathy Kennedy--the Would Be 4th District County Supervisor?

On Saturday at the Davis Farmer's Market I met Cathy Kennedy for the first time. She is a very nice lady with an infectious personality. Bit by bit, I have been able to kind of piece together who this individual is who is running for the Yolo County Board of Supervisors against both Former School Board Member Jim Provenza and State Senator Denise Ducheney Chief of Staff John Ferrera.

On her ballot statement she writes,

"As Supervisor, I’ll bring fresh ideas and a new perspective to the same old problems that continue to plague county government. I’ll tackle these challenges head-on, with a unique blend of passion and grit that only comes with real-life experience — not politics as usual."

When asked why she is running, she prides herself on not being a politician and hopes to bring fresh ideas. Although, others have told me that she admits she does not know a tremendous amount about county government, I have to say she is a pretty quick study on it based on our conversation.

She is a former teen mother who now cares for three teenage children of one of her relatives.

Cathy Kennedy officially declares herself as a Decline to State. However, as recently as a month ago according to voter history records she was a registered Republican.

She starts out with some interesting endorsements. First, Yolo County Supervisor Matt Rexroad.

Second, she has recently received the endorsement of the Davis Police Officer's Association. This one struck me as interesting. Asking her about it, she told me she had developed a good relationship with them over the years. She felt like the police performed a good and honorable service. Still I think most people would probably say that as well, so it would be interesting to hear from the DPOA as to why they endorsed a political newcomer who is running what is likely an uphill battle against two better known and more established candidates.

Third she is endorsed by Former State Senator Jim Nielsen:

“Cathy Kennedy is one of the most visionary, articulate and enthusiastic candidates for Yolo county supervisor in memory. I am confident she will be a leader that will truly represent the citizens, the best interests of Yolo County and one who will bring certainty and stability to county government.”

A Google search of Kennedy does not show much activity although there was an interesting mention on the Davis City Council minutes where she appeared in 2003 to oppose the inclusion of a black ribbon in addition to a yellow ribbon. That is an interesting note, because an examination of her list of endorsers shows a number of people who I recognize as conservative military families including Cynthia Schulze, James and Dorothy Pearson (Dorothy is a police officer in Davis), Bob and Sylvia Glynn, James and Ramona Hechtl, of the names I know for sure.

Cathy Kennedy's full list of nominators include: Roy Lester, Shannah Starr, Deborah Folb, Alexa Eisenman, Janet Crooks, Cameron Black, Marc Wigley, Nancy Wigley, Katherine Ayers, Penny Ayers, Cynthia Schulze, James Pearson, Dorothy Pearson, Gena Finver, William Paciulla, Jennifer Herzog, Matt Soga, Bob Glynn, Sylvia Marchi-Glynn, Ron Lautzenheiser, Alexis Kennedy , Robert Davidson, Aaron Difuntorum, Robin Anderson, Iris Cochran, Janna Cannon, Jewel Grubbs, Reed Youmans, Kathy Barrientes, Abel Barrientes, Margo Jameson, Ramona Hechtl, James Hechtl, Kathryn Mandelaris, Derek Mandelaris, John Chiles, Kellie Kajanka, Jill Judd, Stephan Judd and Marilyn Needham.

On the issues, I did not get to talk to her that long but one key issue I did ask about was county imposed-peripheral growth and the pass-through agreement. Cathy Kennedy told me that she was against county imposed-residential growth on the borders of Davis. She felt it was unfair for the county to develop there because it would force the city of Davis to supply costly services. However, she was more amenable to developing business on the periphery of Davis and other cities as a means by which to supply the county which much needed revenue to pay for the vast amount of county services.

She also felt having to raise children from a substance abusing mother, she was in a better position to understand the need for these kind of services than her opponents. And to be able more effectively run county services.

The emergence of Cathy Kennedy as an individual with strong support from this segment of the population further complicates the race for the 4th Supervisorial District. As an individual who appeals to a more conservative base, she is likely to be able to take away a sizable vote in this contest. Moreover, as the only woman running with a last name of Kennedy, she probably is able to garner some more liberal votes as well.

On paper, she does not figure to stand much chance against two better known candidates, each of whom have been campaigning for almost a year. However, there is a strong probability that she will force this race into November. When she first announced that appeared the likely outcome, now I would say it is all but certain. While there are some scenarios where she could finish second in June, I still think the eventual run off would most likely be Jim Provenza against John Ferrera. However, if she can garner the vast majority of Republican votes in the 4th Supervisorial District and peel away some Democratic votes, she could finish second. I see very little chance she could go on to win. The most likely scenario is still that she plays spoiler and pushes this to November. It is a heavily Democratic District, and while you can argue it is a non-partisan race, it rarely really is.

It will be interesting to see if she becomes well-financed, because that will play a big factor in her chances for finishing second. My overall impression of her is that she is a very nice person and she will learn a lot from running in this race. She adds a different perspective and a different dynamic that will make this race more interesting.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Vanguard Investigation Part IV: Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team Findings

The Vanguard continues its multipart series of former DJUSD Deputy Superintendent Tahir Ahad, Total School Solutions, and fiscal mismanagement of the Davis Joint Unified Business Office during Tahir Ahad’s tenure from 1999 to 2006 as CBO of DJUSD.

The first segment of this series which ran on Sunday, February 24, 2008 examined the inherent problems involved in a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest we examined involved a series of disturbing findings of how Mr. Ahad used his position as Chief Business Officer (CBO) with the Davis Joint Unified School District as a means by which to start up his own private company for his own private gain. In short, he used public resources for private gain, a serious breach in the public trust.

The second portion of the series ran on March 3, 2008 and focused specifically upon the facilities planning and management beginning with the lost state matching funds for Montgomery Elementary, problems with Korematsu and eventually the King High debacle which led to the new school board finding out exactly what had been going on with the district’s facilities construction money. Basically money was shifted from later projects to make up for lost matching funds for Montgomery, lower than expected matching funds for Korematsu, and other cost overruns. Instead of acknowledging the depths of the problems, Mr. Ahad asked the school board in 2005 to pass a COP (Certificate of Participation), a form of debt financing, to pay for King High and some other projects. In 2006, the board learned that they only had half the money they needed to fund King High, and they realized that money had been shuffled, but only after an extensive investigation and the temporary halting of construction activities at King High.

The third segment which ran on March 10, 2008 continued to look at the facilities funding problems and other fiscal management issues. We examined the property exchange deal involving the Grande Property, which was a highly secretive and unusual process that we will argue violated a number of the California Education Code’s provisions for the sale of public surplus property. There were several primary problems with the property exchange for King High School. First, the process was conducted primarily in secret with a limited bid process. It required a property exchange to avoid possible efforts by the city to invoke the Naylor act. Finally, the process would have resulted in the district getting a low sale price for the property.

This final segment examines the report from consultant Terri Ryland and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) report. We have discussed both in previous weeks, but this time, we do so in more detail, looking at the problems with the district’s tracking and management of its facilities money and then efforts by the district—which were successful—to fix those problems.

Terri Ryland’s Report

We start this segment by returning to the problems with King High School that emerged on November 2, 2006 and resulted in the halting of construction on that project. Recall from the second segment of this series, that the school board was surprised to find out that the money that they had thought they had approved to pay for King High School in 2005 was not there. Now, the Superintendent, David Murphy, was asking for an additional $5 million in COP to fund the high school. The school board learned that they only had half of the money needed to finish the construction of King High.

As Board Member Gina Daleiden said during that meeting:

“We learned just a few minutes ago that more than fifty percent of the [king high] project is unpaid unless we make a decision about COPs. That is news to me… We need to look at the COPs that the previous board took out because I think they were for King High.”

Throughout this trying and at times contentious meeting, Superintendent Murphy was steadfast in his belief that the $10 million was still there... "I’m sure we have all the money that we think we have, but the documentation provided to the FCMAT team was deficient… I’m confident that not only do we have the money that we believe we have, but the documentation will show that.”

He explained that since we were short-staffed on the business services side, the top two positions were vacant, and that the facilities people were not people with fiscal expertise, and that this was the cause of the confusion.

It was at this point that Superintendent Murphy brought in Terri Ryland to examine the district’s books and figure out where the money that the school board believed should be there was.

As we learned two weeks ago, Superintendent Murphy was correct—the $10 million was there, it simply had been used to backfill payments for previous facilities projects and therefore unavailable to pay for King High.

As consultant Terri Ryland put it, “that wasn’t negative money, that was a shortfall in money that at one time we anticipated receiving.”

Part of the confusion on the board's part is that as Board Member Jim Provenza put it, we were “carrying the anticipated state revenue from Montgomery in our facilities plan as revenue available for projects.”

That money according to Terri Ryland was carried on the book until the end of the 2005-06 year. In other words, to the school board, it looked like money was there, that was not in fact there.

FCMAT Report

This problem among others were laid out more fully in the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) report that was released on December 14, 2006.

After District Chief Budget Officer Tahir Ahad left the district in 2006, DJUSD hired an interim CBO Cathi Vogel. One of Ms. Vogel’s key recommendations to the Superintendent was to bring in the FCMAT team to examine the district and assess its conditions.

Part of the problem that came to light during the course of both the November 2, 2006 meeting and the December 7, 2006 meeting is that once Tahir Ahad left the district, there was literally no one in the district who understood the budget, where the documents were, and who could help piece together the district fiscal reports. This was a problem in and of itself.

As Board Member Provenza put it on December 7, 2006:

“We had an interim CBO, we had fiscal people here. That’s really what I’m going to. In my mind, correct me if I’m wrong, if someone leaves a district, the fiscal situation should be such that someone else could pick up the books, could look at the records and understand them and you wouldn’t have to pay someone for hundreds of hours of work to put it together. That you could have a system like that, that any CPA could go in and look at and understand.”

FCMAT not only came in to evaluate the district, but they came in to make recommendations on how to better run the fiscal office, so that these problems do not repeat themselves, so that next time someone leaves the district, it is easy for an individual to look at the books and figure out what money the district has. Instead, the district had to bring in Terri Ryland for hundreds of hours of billed work to literally reconstruct the books by hand.

One of things that encumbered the FCMAT team was the fact that “Both the prior Deputy Superintendent and the Director of Business Services cleared off their computer hard drives before departing the district.” FCMAT therefore recommended the enactment of policies and procedures for the retention of information on computer hard drives and notes, so that history can remain even when employees leave the district.

In their executive summary, FCMAT also notes that

“The organizational structure of the business division must clearly define and delineate the job responsibilities of managers, supervisors and employees… Although board policy exists, business office employees have not been evaluated annually. Some have not been evaluated for several years. A process needs to be implemented to ensure that employee performance evaluations are prepared regularly.”

While we have primarily focused this investigation on the Facilities projects and their mismanagement, there is a significant trail of mismanagement within the district offices themselves in terms of personnel. We discussed some of this briefly in the first segment. Interviews with past employees suggest that these structural designs were not accidental and not merely sloppy, but rather intentional features of the office designed to maximize control and loyalty to the former CBO, Tahir Ahad.

The FCMAT report goes on to discuss the fact that “business department staff do not currently receive cross training… Cross training helps departments perform effectively when an employee is absent, and enables employees to perform tasks outside their normal duties when necessary.” It goes on to note: “It appears that the previous CBO and director completed a lot of tasks and analyses on their own, and did not leave backup or information for future employees to follow and understand.”

This again seems to be an innocuous function of an individual’s management style, but it also leads the entire office to be dependent on a single individual in order to effectively function. That means that once that individual leaves the district, the ability to carry out previous functions virtually collapses. Indeed, FCMAT noted, “the district lacks written desk manuals, standard operating procedures or other specific reference documents in the business office.”

FCMAT then goes on to rate the district as having a “high fiscal health risk level. The areas of concern include cafeteria interfund borrowing, cafeteria encroachment, management information systems, retiree health benefits, leadership stability, district liability, and facilities.”

Most importantly—“no single report adequately tracks projects and the different types of funding used on each project for both past and current projects.” I shall talk more about this shortly.

Right now, it is very important to emphasize that all of the shortcomings that FCMAT put into place were addressed by the district in short order. In fact, by the time Montgomery came up before the State Allocations Board, the district informed the board that they had already implemented the recommendations of FCMAT. This will be discussed more at the end of this segment, but given the gravity of the current budget situation it is important to note that at the very least the district is on sound fiscal footing in terms of policies and procedures—however, this was not true in 2006 and that led to a high risk rating that was quite alarming to current school board members.

FCMAT looks at 18 categories of “Fiscal Indicators” and determined 7 categories were “not acceptable.” That put the district into the “high” risk category.

It is interesting to note that FCMAT rated the category, deficit spending, as acceptable. However, they also noted that “since FCMAT’s review, the district has given a 6.5% salary increase that will result in deficit spending of $1,030,758 in 2006-07.” This was not included in their projections and analysis and should be a note of concern that would carry-over to later budgetary issues. Unlike other fiscal practices, this one can be put on the current school board.

The first problem that FCMAT cited was interfund borrowing. On paper, FCMAT said that the district does not appear to have interfund borrowing. However, since the cafeteria fund had ended in a negative balance the previous four years,

“interfund borrowing should have occurred instead of ending the year with a negative cash balance. Because interfund borrowing is not occurring, there has been no awareness or discussion at the board level regarding the negative fund balance.”

Along the same lines, the district got a negative finding on encroachment. “The district needs to engage in interfund borrowing at year end to cover the negative fund balance, and address the issue of why this fund is continually in the red.”

Furthermore, the district was criticized because key fiscal reports were not readily available and understandable.

“The COE [County Office of Education] expressed concerns about how questions are answered on fiscal reports. The district provided backup as requested, but the COE often had additional questions or concerns based on the data provided, and felt that the reports did not answer the questions in many cases.”

The district scored poorly on retiree health benefits that were funded on a “pay-as-you-go basis” rather than having an actuarial study and a plan to fund the ongoing liability.

The district also go dinged because they had an interim CBO and therefore lacked stability in leadership.

An interesting point was made that the governing board of the district generally refrains from micromanaging.

“Comments were made that the board micromanages, but interviews and board agendas and minutes did not corroborate that. Board members have asked for additional budget information, such as budgets by department and history of past reductions versus what has been reestablished. These types of requests are common and reflect fiscal responsibility.”

The district liability was not acceptable either. The district had not done the proper legal analysis regarding potential lawsuits nor had it set up contingent liabilities for anticipated settlements and legal fees.

While some of these problems were serious, most of them appeared to be easily resolvable with good management from the administration and direction by the school board.

The most serious problem, not surprisingly for anyone who has read this series, is in the facilities area.

The biggest and most alarming finding is that “over the years, the district has transferred money between funds and it is difficult to ascertain which funds were used for which project.”

One of the biggest findings that both FCMAT and Terri Ryland pointed out is that the district used a single account for its facilities funds rather than creating a separate account for each new project. That meant that in addition to difficulty tracking the project as FCMAT pointed out, it also meant that it was easy to use monies that had been designated to pay for one project could easily be used to pay for previous projects—and the board would have difficulty tracking those payments and funds.

“The tracking reports are inadequate and appear to have been used throughout the program.”

Part of the problem was that the Chief Business Officer left in February of 2006.

“An interim CBO was hired but was told not to work on facilities accounting and funding, because the former CBO would do that. That apparently did not occur, and thus the area of facilities needs immediate attention… The previous CBO controlled all facilities planning and long-and short-term funding recommendations and decisions with no input from the Facilities Department since 2004, when the previous Facilities Director left.”

Furthermore, personnel was not the only problem the district faced on this.

“Even if adequate personnel were available to track projects, the tracking mechanisms used are inadequate and have been for the length of the program. A number of reports are used, but do not appear to reconcile with the district’s accounting system.

There also is no reporting mechanism to track past, current and future projects and their budgets in a master plan format so that the board, staff and public can readily see the expenditures of facilities funds over the duration of the program since approval of the Master Plan in 2000.”

FCMAT goes on to discuss the problems with Montgomery and Korematsu that were discussed in detail in the second segment of this report.

The problem of commingled funds may be explained away as sloppiness or even expediency on the part of the previous CBO. However, one point that needs to be made is that this is not an accidental policy but rather the result of specific board action early in Tahir Ahad’s term as CBO that allowed facilities project money to be placed in a single account rather than giving each project its own account that could be tracked over time by the board or the public.

Board President Sheila Allen found this the most alarming aspect of the FCMAT report’s findings.

“I think the most alarming thing about it was my concern about the specificity of the tracking of the dollars. If someone is in charge of tracking the money, I would hope that they would know exactly which dollars come in, into which pot, how exactly they were spent, and that is something that should be fairly easily tracked. I know it’s a very big organization and I absolutely know how complex school financing is, but that is my expectation of a finance department—is to know exactly how much comes in, how is it supposed to be spent, and how was it spent. "

A final problem that we have already discussed is the use of anticipated but not yet board approved moneys in line items as though the money were there and approved.

“In February 2004, staff prepared and presented a report detailing another revision to the Master Plan. The revisions included another $9.7 million in additional projects. In this report, no mention was made of the proposed funding sources for these projects.”

FCMAT then goes on to say:

“Because of the way the reports have been developed and presented to the board and community, it appears that all such projects have been planned. However, the funding sources are unclear because the board has not yet approved additional debt, such as COPs. Potential future revenue amounts are shown on the cash flow statements even though they have not been approved by the board, giving the impression that there is sufficient cash to proceed with the projects. The reports must be developed to distinguish between secured funding and potential funding to give the board greater certainty and understanding in their discussion of future facility projects.”

Board Vice President Gina Daleiden addressed this point when she spoke to the Vanguard in January 2008:

“There was also a problem with documents that went to the board and the public not clearly reflecting reality. When we adopted the FCMAT report, we made a motion… I made a motion seconded by Tim Taylor to direct the business staff to insure that speculative, not yet board approved financing is not reflected as available cash in cash flow documents and is instead clearly marked as possible options. The FCMAT report also says that that should happen.”

On page 95 of the FCMAT report they note $3 million was erroneously entered onto the line item of “projected redevelopment fund.”

“Since the issuance of FCMAT’s initial draft report, the district has disclosed that the $3 million was entered on the wrong line and instead should have reflected a new COP issuance, with a second $3 million to be requested in 2007. Since neither amount had been approved by the board, it is not appropriate to reflect that as cash flow unless clearly noted as potential cash. The current practice of listing the amounts without such a notation must be discontinued. The district should insure that all revenue projections are realistic and based on likely funding.”

According to Board Vice President Gina Daleiden, the board took the findings very seriously.

“Because that was such a concern when the board adopted the FCMAT report, the board made a series of motions adopting a lot of the recommendations from the from the FCMAT report that was done very deliberately so we could say we take this very seriously and make sure that our practices become best practices. Now in terms of what key changes were most vital to make, you can find that online in Bruce’s response to the FCMAT report, our new CBO. And I would cite these changes as well as… so here’s some of the changes… Some of the changes are new fiscal team has implemented, stronger financial controls, clear separation of authority within the accounting staff, and more accountability in staffing decisions. We have hired a director of facilities who will save us money by bringing professional oversight to our facilities budgets, maintenance and projects. We have instituted more regular reporting to the board on budgeting items. One of the things that it says in the FCMAT, that it notices in the past that the interim budget reports were put on consent without discussion and those are always on our regular agenda now so that the board can consciously talk about any adjustments to the budget and track how budget expenditures are meshing. [refers to PowerPoint on website that shows Colby’s changes to the FCMAT report]. I’m confident that our new CBO is implementing the FCMAT report. And it was very clear that that was one of the board’s top priorities for our interim superintendent. To make sure that the FCMAT report was being implemented.”

Board President Sheila Allen:

“To my knowledge we have either already implemented the recommendations or there are plans in place to do the recommendations. The key changes that they wanted in place were two things, is that they were talking about a coding system—that’s the standard practices. And the other thing is that you need a permanent head person and fiscal manager and we have both of those now.”

Some have defended past fiscal practices of the district on a number of fronts. The first point of course is that no money has been lost or misspent by the district.

Even strong critics of the previous regime agree on this point.

Board Vice President, Gina Daleiden:

“I do want to be clear that the money was spent on district buildings. So it wasn’t taken away or put into something that had nothing to do with the school district. They were spent on our buildings just no one realized the way in which it was being spent”

Board President Sheila Allen was very adamant that there was no lost money.

“The FCMAT report, and to my knowledge there was no lost money, there was no money that was illegally spent, but it was very difficult for someone to come in and be able to track exactly—here’s the money coming in, here’s how it was spent. And that’s concerning because these are taxpayer dollars. So we want to make sure that we know how much money we have, how it was spent, and that it was spent in the right category.

The good news about FCMAT is that it gave us some very clear guidance from professionals of where we need to go to do better. Although there was alarming information in there, the important thing to me was very help that rather than someone to say to me it’s a mess, or we don’t know exactly where the money’s been going, what was important to me is that they said here’s what you can do, you can do this… And also it was very important for me to know, and I’m sure I said this at public meetings, there’s no lost money. Nothing illegal has happened.

All of the experts, both ours and their’s were able to say, there’s no lost money, there was nothing illegal happened. That was very important to me that was very clear to me… I’ve been looking around for a better word than sloppy bookkeeping. It wasn’t very precise. So we put into place a more precise approach to bookkeeping and there’s all new people over there. So that’s the really good news is that we have people that we can trust—their numbers, we can trust that they’ll get us the information straight up…”

The Vanguard agrees with that assessment, but would argue that it is less than clear that this the end of the story. While in the true sense of the word, money was not lost, the poor fiscal practices of the district monopolized board and staff time that could have been spent better in other areas. Moreover, it is far from clear that these practices did not cost the district money both in terms of inefficiency of operation but also in terms of the time and money needed to get a straight accounting from both FCMAT and Terri Ryland. That in a very real way is lost money.

A second point was made to me that the FCMAT rating of “high risk” was misleading. The district got good marks on position control for the most part, which is the means of tracking and projecting employee salary and benefits. “A reliable position control system establishes authorized positions by site or department and ensures that staffing levels conform to district formulas and standards, thus preventing overstaffing.”

They go on to point out that a number of the deficiencies were minor and easily correctable, and that given four of those factors, that would place the district in low risk rather than high risk. On the other hand, one might wonder if some of the past practices of the district have not caught up with them in the current budget crisis.

Board Vice President Gina Daleiden was asked about the rating system.

“As with any standardized numbers, the numbers are not the whole story. So whether or not one question was weighted more than another, whether or not our score was a nine instead of a nine and a half, and I’m making that number up, the numerical value doesn’t matter to me, as much as the substance of the report. I am a trustee of this district, when I look at a document that says to me here are some issues with how the district’s finances are being run, we need to take those seriously, that’s the only way to get better. You have to look at things that can be improved and work on improving them. Some of the findings in this report—the responsible thing to do is to pay attention to them. To fix them. And it doesn’t really much matter to me whether it’s a high risk, medium risk, it’s not a grade on a paper and it’s not points in a pageant. This is about the practices of the district. And wanting to insure that they’re not only adequate but they’re really good. We have a great school district, and we need to have great fiscal practices so that we can support all of our programs and do the best for our kids. And it’s public money so we have to be careful in how we expended it.”

Both Sheila Allen and Gina Daleiden agree that things have changed.

Board Vice President Gina Daleiden wants to the public to know that “Past practices are in the past.” We have according to her new safeguards in place. We have new conflict of interest codes that will protect us from future problems with employees working in outside consulting firms, we have implemented the recommendations of the FCMAT report, the district reports to the board on a regular basis with easy to understand and clear budget updates. She expressed confidence both in the new CBO Bruce Colby and the new Superintendent James Hammond. And the board along with Bruce Colby has enacted a series of careful fiscal procedures so that it is easy to track monies as they go to and from projects.

Board President Sheila Allen likewise, declares it a “new day.”

“I really am not interested in having the district dragged through the mud further when these are things that have already happened. I’m totally fine with people knowing what happened that’s fine with me, but I want the headline and I want the last part of it to be here’s how it’s changed. It’s a new day. We have a new superintendent; we have an all-new budget office. We have this accounting information put into place. The board since I’ve been on it, has a very strong commitment to open government, no more closed door discussion about district information.”

Summary

My concluding remarks for this four-part series basically echoes the comment made by Board President Sheila Allen. I think the public can look at these problems and better understand in part why we are facing some of the budget problems that we are facing. However, I also think we must understand that the then new school board which came into office in December 2005 with newly elected members Sheila Allen, Gina Daleiden and Tim Taylor, joined with Jim Provenza in providing the leadership that has over the last two years taken deliberate and concrete steps to put the district on better fiscal ground. It was these school board members who led the fight to clean up the fiscal house of the district and in many cases uncovered past business practices condoned by previous school boards that have plagued the district for years.

There is better tracking, better oversight, and a new fiscal team. What is unfortunate is that the budgetary bottom has fallen out of the district at a time when in terms of policies and procedures, the district has never been stronger.

Nevertheless, I think there is a good amount of important information that has been gleaned out of this investigation in terms of the way that the business office was run, the way in which monies were handled, and most importantly the need for all districts to enact strong conflict of interest policies in order to better protect themselves from employees and companies that are seeking to profit on public money.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting