Power Shift on the Council: Souza Emerges As Power Center

The 2008 Elections saw Councilmember Don Saylor win the most votes to ascend to the position of Mayor Pro Tem, Davis' version of the mayor-in-waiting as Mr. Saylor will take over as Mayor in 2010. However, since the new session began, we have instead seen Don Saylor increasingly marginalized on the council. Emerging as the most powerful member of the council was Stephen Souza, who has acted as the swing vote on numerous key contented votes since September 8.

It is a small sample to be sure, just 12 contested votes (i.e. non-unanimous votes), but the pattern is clear. Souza has shaped the council's agenda voting with the majority on 11 of the 12 votes. Not only that, but he has played the role of kingmaker, shaping the direction of the policy. It is not only the number of votes, but the importance of the votes whether it has been on living wage, the Ogrydziak project, Cannery Park, and last week on both J Street and Hunt-Boyer.

Meanwhile it is top-vote getter Don Saylor who have been increasingly marginalized on the council as the vote of extremity, voting on the losing side of contested votes 8 of the 12 times. Mr. Saylor has been the lone dissenter on three of the votes including the Cannery Park, the letter on the Grand Jury Report, and the New Harmony CEQA. In addition, the Mayor Pro Tem has voted with Mayor Ruth Asmundson on the losing end of a 3-2 vote five times. The Mayor herself has been on the short-end of the vote on six votes.

By comparison, Lamar Heystek has found himself on the short-end of two votes, Councilmember Sue Greenwald has been on the losing end of just one vote.

These numbers alone understate the impact of Stephen Souza on the council. For one thing, these are just final votes. A good example is on the Cannery Park proposal. Councilmember Sue Greenwald made a motion to keep the current zoning in place and deny Lewis Planned Communities' application to change the zoning. That vote failed by a 3-2 vote. However, Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek would then join Mayor Asmundson and Stephen Souza in supporting City Manager Bill Emlen's recommendation to pursue an equal weight EIR.

In another example just this week, Mr. Souza forged out a compromise on the issue of the Hunt-Boyer building where the council had been split as to whether to turn it into a visitor's center or to pursue a restaurant. Mayor Asmundson and Mayor Pro Tem Saylor strongly supported the visitor's center option, while Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald supported the restaurant. Souza worked out a compromise that passed by a 3-2 vote which would explore both options including putting forward an RFP on a restaurant.

Souza was also the deciding vote on the living wage vote.

Perhaps the most interesting vote was on an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Marie Ogryziak's project on B Street. Councilmember Souza abstained from taking a position in that vote. His abstention meant that the project would be denied for at least a year. After that vote there was a public exchange between Souza and Saylor.

Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor was not happy. He informed Councilmember Souza that due to his vote the project would be killed. The councilmember was well aware of the implications of his actions.

The councilmember said:

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

Mr. Saylor responded:

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

What is clear here is that Councilmember Stephen Souza now occupies the middle ground on the council on most contested votes. His is the swing vote. But for the most part, they are centrist votes. On both the Cannery vote and the Hunt-Boyer vote, he opposed to more progressive position of Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek and instead forged out his own compromise position.

But there is a notable point along those lines. On both of those votes (these are prime examples), Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek did not get their preferred option. In both cases however they were willing to compromise and work with Councilmember Souza to get a project or an outcome that was closer to their preferred option than the alternative. In that sense both Greenwald and Heystek have been very strategic in their votes and willing to compromise to get things accomplished. As a result, both Greenwald and Heystek have been in the majority on contested votes 11 and 10 times respectively.

The same cannot be said for Mayor Pro Tem Saylor who has refused to compromise and move from his core position in order to get things done. Despite his rhetoric of moderation, his actions have placed him on the most extreme end of the council this term.

The main caveat to this pattern is that it is a very short period of time, since September 8, 2008 and only on a few votes, 12. But it seems, that a new pattern is emerging on the council and the sharp dividing lines that had existed previously are beginning to breakdown. This is to the credit not only of Councilmember Souza but also Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald who have been willing to work with Mr. Souza to get things done.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

City Moves Forward with Living Wage Ordinance

On Tuesday night, city council anonymously moved forward by asking the city staff to draft an ordinance that would bring contracted workers up to $11 per hour or $12.50 per hour should health benefits not be included.

Councilmember Lamar Heystek pushed for the city to move towards a fifty percent of Yolo County median over a period of time. The council direction came on a 3-2 vote with Councilmembers Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza joining Mr. Heystek.

Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor cynically asked staff about the absence of affected employees at this meeting.

"In all of the conversations we've had on this, I've not seen any of the affected employees in the room, and we've not heard from them, that's unusual, why is that?"

Assistant City Manager Paul Navazio did not have an answer to Mr. Saylor's question.

Later during councilmember comments, Councilmember Heystek responded to this question.

"The reason that I'm here is that I'm on the city council."

Heystek suggested that those impacted are not here because they might not know about or they are dealing with other things such as their families and eking out a living. These individuals are not connected to our community and perhaps do not even know that this is before council. Mr. Heystek then points out only two people came about the sewer rates, and noted that we did not ask where the other ratepayers were.

"People have their reasons for being here. I'm here to stand up for the living wage ordinance that I campaigned for and that the city council anonymously supported."

The issue of cost to the city was cited as a reason by the Chamber of Commerce to oppose this measure.

Steve Greenfield, Davis Chamber of Commerce:

"While the Davis Chamber of Commerce acknowledges the social concerns which motivate the wage ordinance, the chamber does not support the adoption of such an ordinance."

"One of the key reasons why we felt that this was not appropriate is that one of the original reasons why these services were selected by your predecessors to contract out was to save costs, and here we're increasing those costs anywhere from $30 to $200,000, maybe even more."

Sue Greenwald asked in response:

"I was wondering, has the Chamber ever taken a position on the labor contracts of our most highly paid workers, who actually pose a threat to the solvency of the city?"

Steve Greenfield:

"Not that I'm aware of."

Councilmember Heystek made an impassioned plea for social justice.

However, as he noted to the Vanguard, the Davis Enterprise slightly misquoted him which changed the meaning of what he said.

The Enterprise printed:

"'This should be more than symbolic,' he said. 'This should help people. This would allow our most vulnerable population to buy our most affordable housing.'"

According to the tape from meeting, Mr. Heystek said "afford" rather than "buy" "our most affordable housing." The idea that an individual would be able to buy housing on a salary of $12.71 is not feasible or realistic. The idea that an individual could afford to rent an apartment in our affordable housing areas is feasible.

This should not be read as a criticism of the Enterprise but rather a clarification of what the Councilmember said and the meaning of his words.

The councilmember pushed hard for the council to adopt a means by which to increase that wage to the eventual goal of 50 percent of Yolo County median. He said he was willing to compromise on the numbers, but not on the principles of the ordinance. He was looking for a way to get this goal.

Sue Greenwald also made a strong statement for social justice:

"I went over cost and it doesn't cost that much. We give almost no discussion, public discussion, to our pay increases for our highest paid workers. And this is where the real cost to the city is."

If we took our highest paid workers, managers, top bargaining groups she said,

"people who make well over $150,000 total compensation, and one year we cut their cost of living increases by one percent for one year... it would probably cover twice what we're asking here."

"People who are doing high paid jobs could not do their work without the labor, the daily labor of the people who are getting paid below a living wage."

In her closing remarks she added:

"Forget about housing... here we're talking about allowing people who work in Davis to eat... I think it's really important that we don't balance our budget on the backs of the poorest of the poor."

The issue of costs to the city was raised by the Chamber of Commerce, as well as three of the councilmembers.

Stephen Souza via teleconference from Long Beach asked:

"The question is where are we going to cut to have this living wage ordinance?"

However, Stephen Souza stuck to his guns on this issue and voted with Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald.

Mayor Asmundson opposed the motion on the grounds of cost to the city as did Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor.

While Councilmember Heystek was the conscience of the council on this issue, Councilmember Greenwald raised the pertinent point on costs.

The city of Davis has 61 employees who make over $100,000 per year in salary and overtime alone. Never mind the amount of employees who make over $100,000 in total compensation and the number of employees who make over $150,000 in total compensation.

Right now, according to Assistant City Manager Navazio, we are talking about 18 workers. This is largely a symbolic action except to those 18 workers who will be better able to feed and shelter their families as the result of council's actions on Tuesday.

The real costs to this city are not from increasing the wages to those 18 workers. The Chamber of Commerce has never inserted itself into labor discussions for those 61 individuals making over $100,000. Sue Greenwald brilliantly asked that questioned, I add the question, why is that?

Why is it that we never have an issue when it comes time to increase the pay to the top employees of the city, but the moment we talk about raising the pay for people making basically poverty wages, the Chamber of Commerce and some of the council becomes fiscal conservatives? At least Mayor Asmundson has been consistent looking for ways to hold the line on spending at the top as well for the bottom. That is more than Don Saylor can say.

As councilmember Sue Greenwald pointed out, if we want to make this work, all we have to do is slow down the growth of the top salaries for a single year. So why are we trying to balance the budget on the backs of those making the lowest wages rather than those making the highest wages.

In this way, the situation in Davis is similar to that with the UCs. The UC system holds out raising the pay of the lowest paid workers but has no problem paying out $800,000 to its President. That represents a $400,000 raise over his predecessor.

This past week, the US government made headlines proposing a $700 BILLION bailout for the top financial companies. These companies are going bankrupt and threatening the solvency of the entire financial system. At the same time, they are paying their top executives up to $25 million per year. And the US taxpayers are expected to bailout these companies who are paying these salaries?

We have things backwards in this country. The powers that be hardly lift a finger in protest when the top dogs get their pay, but God forbid we should ever propose even a very modest pay raise for those making the lowest wages.

Councilmember Lamar Heystek is part of the council minority. He has never had a reliable third vote since he arrived on council. And yet through his vision, his tenacity, and his soul, he has willed this to take place. He deserves tremendous credit for the living wage ordinance, a very modest ordinance that helps a mere 18 people who work indirectly for the city of Davis. This is but the first step, but for those 18 people it will be a tremendous help in their every day lives.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

ASUCD Senate Passes Resolution in Support of Living Wage

In a resolution authored by ASUCD President Ivan Carrillo, Co-authored by Senator Steven Lee, and introduced by Senator Lula Ahmed Falol, the UC Davis student government unamously voted in "support of the establishment of a living wage for City of Davis employees."

In the resolution, the students register concern that the city of Davis hires "for-profit contractors for the ongoing provision of certain municipal services such as tree trimming, custodial work and landscaping" and these contractors pay as little as $9 per hour to their employees.

These wages preclude employees from even being able to live in affordable housing the city of Davis and the wage is larger than $4 per hour less than that for the lowest paid direct wage earner from the city of Davis.

"The City of Davis prides itself on being a progressive community with the aim of advocating social justice for its least advantaged members; and... the broader financial resources of larger employers such as the City of Davis places them in a better position to feasibly provide a living wage that places workers above poverty level."

The ASUCD "supports sustaining a community in which City of Davis employees can adequately support themselves financially within the city of their employment"

And they urge "the Davis City Council to pass an ordinance establishing a living wage requirement for City of Davis employees engaged through for-profit service contractors"

They also note that the current budget does not include a living wage in its provisions and thus in their resolution they call on the Davis City Council to include a living wage in their budget and to pass a budget that pays these employees a living wage.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

JUDGE ORDERS INVESTIGATION OF YOLO D.A. RECORDS TO IDENTIFY COLLUSION & DISCRIMINATORY PROSECUTION OF UNION ACTIVISTS

Order Comes One Year After Arrests and Two Weeks After Food Service Workers' Victory

Special to the Vanguard

On Wednesday April 30, 2007, Judge Basha of the Yolo County Court ordered the Yolo County District Attorney to investigate and turn over the records of all protests of 15 or more people in Yolo County over the last 5 years to identify patterns in the DA's prosecution. In particular, the district attorney must present any and all communications between their office and the UC Davis administration, the Davis City Police Department, and/or the UC Davis Police Department in regards to protests and their prosecution. This order comes as part of a Murgia motion brought by the defendants, which seeks to show that there has been discriminatory prosecution in this case.

The 7 defendants, including a UCD lecturer, a UCD alum, a UCD student, UCD workers, and former Sodexho workers, were arrested on May 1st 2007 during a march in support of contracted out food service workers. Recently, on April 17, 2008, the UC Davis Administration finally announced that, in fact, the contracted out food service workers' demands would be met and all of the workers will be converted to UCD employees with Union membership. UC Davis had been the last of the 10 UC campuses and 5 medical centers to still contract out its dining services.

"This is an important victory in a longer battle," said John Viola, an attorney with the National Lawyers Guild representing some of the May Day 2007 defendants, "since now we will be able to identify the ways in which union organizers and union supporters are being discriminatorily prosecuted as a result of collusion between the UC Administration, the Davis City Police Department, the UC Davis Police Department, and the Yolo County District Attorney."

"This decision really vindicates us in bringing the motion," said Arooj Ahmad, a former Sodexho worker and UCD Alumna who was arrested on May 1st, 2007, "which we think will show that we are being discriminated against for our support of the union. Now that the UC Davis administration has finally listened to the community and done the right thing, we can all see that our actions throughout this whole past year have been justified.”

During the hearing, the attorneys for the defendants exposed other incidents where police and the District Attorney worked together to chill union activity, as well as proved that other protesters who were involved with non-violent protests that were not affiliated with the union were not actually prosecuted.

“We applaud the district attorney's ordinarily lenient practices in cases of non-violent civil disobedience,“ said Viola, “but find it totally improper, unacceptable, not to mention unconstitutional that their decision to prosecute in this case was arguably motivated by an improper relationship with the University and their efforts to stop the campaign.”

The District Attorney has 30 days to turn over the records, and the next court date will be June 11th.

2008 May Day Protests At UC Davis Push for Social Justice

While it paled in comparison to last year's large crowd of 500 to 1000 students, workers, and community members, a solid crowd of more than 150 turned out to mark the commemoration of May Day in honor labor rights and other social justice. Among the variety of issues of concern--Coca-Cola's treatment of workers in Central America, ending the war in Iraq, Immigrant Justice in the US, labor rights on campus and in the city of Davis, among a broad array of social issues brought to the fore.

Unlike last year where a large contingency marched from the Memorial Union down Russell to the corner of Anderson and Russell, where streets were blocked and arrests ensued, this year's protests were mild by comparison. Music, drums, and fiery speeches were about the extent of the excitement.

A few of the highlights included an entertaining clash between the more progressive and liberal elements and College Republicans, who in a small contingency brought their own signs.

This inspired the partisan crowd to attempt to block the conservative messages in what quickly became a cat-and-mouse game.

Among a variety of speakers was Mayor Sue Greenwald who addressed the crowd citing her record of seeking a living wage for the city of Davis. The Mayor told the crowd that only she and Councilmember Lamar Heystek supported living wage and she pledged to support a progressive wage scale for the city of Davis to the applause of the crowd.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Mayor Greenwald Joins Councilmember Heystek in Support of Sodexho Workers

On Monday April 14, 2008, Davis Mayor Sue Greenwald wrote a letter to UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef, making public her “support of Sodexho workers’ requests.”

Greenwald has met with Sodexho workers over the past two years and chose to make her support public now as she and City Councilmember Lamar Heystek have begun taking public actions for a Living Wage City Ordinance.

Mayor Sue Greenwald in a letter to Chancellor Vanderhoef wrote:

“I feel strongly that if the University truly believes in its ‘Principals of Community’ ethic it would treat all of its workers with the respect and equity that they are due.”

She goes on to once again point out that:

“UC Davis is the only UC campus which does not include its food workers as part of its community.”

Mayor Greenwald called on the Chancellor to recognize the Sodexho workers’ requests for the “same benefits and wages as the University food services employees, as well as union representation.”

Meanwhile a Senate Committee on Tuesday approved legislation to ensure that the University of California contracts with responsible businesses and that there is a competitive bidding process every three years. In addition, the University of California (UC) Responsible Contracting Act requires the University to maintain a centralized database of contracts that is available for public review at each campus.

Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) introduced the measure as a result of numerous reports of UC’s deficient and non-transparent contract bidding process. It was recently uncovered that a UC Santa Barbara contractor violated wage and hour laws. For more than a decade, UC Davis has failed to put out to a bid contract for food services. In fact, the same food service company has held the contract for over thirty years.

Senator Yee said:

“SB 1596 will ensure that the University contracts with responsible entities, workers are protected, and the taxpayers’ and students’ dollars are being wisely spent. It is imperative that UC has a competitive environment where bidding is fair, transparency and accountable to the people of California.”

Senator Yee in his comments singled out UC Davis:

“It is unacceptable that UC Davis has contracted with the same campus food service company for decades without putting the contract out to bid. The cost to taxpayers and students as a result of this policy is immeasurable.”

According to a Press Release from AFSCME 3299:

"Recently, UC Santa Barbara awarded a low-bid contract to provide painting services on campus. Unfortunately, the contractor declared bankruptcy and the employees were unable to cash their paychecks for painting services they had already provided the University. Wages owed to workers included approximately $90,000. SB 1596 is expected to prevent such events from happening in the future."

Lakesha Harrison President of AFSCME 3299 said:

“The passage of SB 1596 is crucial to ensuring the fundamental right of the public to have access to information and providing greater oversight of the University. The bill will ensure that questionable practices, like at UC Davis where Sodexo has had the contract with the university for over 3 decades with no competitive bidding in over 10 years, would be put to an end. The bill will also ensure that contractors are responsible so that Californians receive quality services at the best costs.”

While the bill was passed out of committee, it remains a long way from passage into law.

SB 1596 will also ensure competition by requiring all contracts be limited to three years terms and that upon completion of the term, the University shall solicit bids through a competitive bidding process. The would avoid a repeat of what happened with UC Davis in 2004, when the University announced a six year extension with Sodexho at the same time the university announced a multi-million dollar investment in the campus by the same contractor. This despite growing public scrutiny at that time into the food service contract.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Lamar Heystek's Persistence Pays Off in Consensus on Living Wage for City Employees

It has been a long and at times difficult road that Councilmember Lamar Heystek has taken en route to the first step towards a $13 per hour living wage for city employees and city contracted employees.

Some of the same Councilmembers, specifically Stephen Souza and Don Saylor, who praised the persistence and patience of Councilmember Heystek on Tuesday night, had put up roadblocks in the past toward achieving a living wage ordinance.

In Councilmember Lamar Heystek's second meeting on the Davis City Council, on August 1, 2006, he brought up the issue of having a living wage for all businesses in Davis larger than 50 employees. The Council led then by Don Saylor and Stephen Souza voted by a 3-2 margin not to agendize the item for discussion. Instead they encouraged Councilmember Heystek to bring the item back as a Councilmember item--which meant it would not have staff prepared remarks or a recommendation.

When Councilmember Heystek did this back in September 19, 2006, he was excoriated by both Councilmembers Souza and Saylor for "playing politics."

Councilmember Don Saylor was particularly vicious in his criticism:

“There’s just a number of questions about this,” Councilman Don Saylor said. “To bring it up as a discussion is appropriate. To bring it up as a full-blown ordinance for a first reading, that’s not talking about policy, that’s talking about politics in a lead-up to an election.”

It was thus not without irony that Don Saylor remarked on Tuesday night, that this was how he preferred to have the item brought up--with a full staff report that weighed in on how other cities have dealt with living wage ordinances, what the pay rates for such an ordinance might be, and the overall cost to the city in terms of increased wages.

Bill Camp from the Sacramento Central Labor Council and Guy Rinfrow from the United Healthcare Workers both came forward during public comment to press for a living wage.

Don Saylor had first requested a special study to be commissioned on the impact to the city budget and business, but the labor leaders rejected this as a delay tactic. It was in many ways, akin to punting on first down.

Again it was Lamar Heystek who took the lead and spoke passionately about the need for people to be able to afford to live in Davis on what they are earning. In particular, he looked toward at minimum paying people what they could afford to pay if they received affordable housing in Davis. Our pay scale at present does not even pay that amount to the workers earning the lowest wages.

The point was brought up that the City of Davis was pressing UC Davis to bring its food service workers in house, yet how can the city have standing to complain about UC tactics, if they themselves do not practice what they preach.

There was strong consensus on council to bring back a living wage ordinance, with a full economic impact report, for discussion and approval by the summer.

Meanwhile, the council had to determine what to do with two outsourced contracts to landscaping and janitorial services.

Councilmember Don Saylor moved that we approve the contract for another year and then once the living wage ordinance was in place, they could sign a new contract when this one expired. However, this motion did not appear to have support.

Once again Lamar Heystek passionately said that he could not in good conscience agree to an outsourced contract that did not pay living wage. He pushed for the contract to contain a minimum of $13.11 per hour. For a time it appeared that this might be the consensus of three Councilmembers.

However, then Don Saylor moved for a substitute that would expire at the end of the calendar year and thus not extend the contract beyond this year.

One could see that Councilmember Stephen Souza was conflicted on this. Both Councilmember Saylor and Assistant City Manager Paul Navazio pushed him on the item, particularly with their view that the city had not yet done an impact study to see the economic impact of a $13.11 wage. This pressure eventually got to Councilmember Stephen Souza and he joined Saylor and Mayor Pro Tem Asmundson to pass the contract extension by a 3-2 vote. Mayor Sue Greenwald remained firmly with Councilmember Heystek in opposition to any contract extension that did not carry with it a living wage provision.

It seemed clear that Councilmember Saylor thought he was going to get full council consensus, but Heystek and Greenwald remained adamant in their convictions. The same could not be said for Stephen Souza who eventually caved under the pressure of his colleague.

However, this setback should not overlook the great progress made on the issue of living wage. But it is not enough to merely implement it for city contracts. The city of Davis should ensure that employees of large businesses--not the small business that has a handful of employees--but the large businesses that can afford to pay a bit more in salary so that people can afford to live in Davis are paid a living wage.

We are always talking about affordable housing and providing housing for people of moderate means and yet we usually only deal on that side of the equation and never look toward the wages side of the equation. The information that came from this discussion was sobering. Our lowest wage earners for the city do not make enough even to live in affordable housing projects. That simply cannot continue.

Many of these workers live outside of Davis and have to commute 20 to 25 miles to get to work. Thus, the lack of a living wage is not merely an economic issue, but it is also an environmental issue. The amount of carbon emissions and gas consumed indicates that our wage policies in Davis are a detriment to the environment and efforts at curbing global warming.

Were it not for the vision and tenacity of Lamar Heystek, this issue would not even be on the radar. He has exhibited true leadership on this issue that has earned the respect even of those colleagues who have opposed him from the start.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Councilmember Heystek's Persistence on Living Wage Leads to Future Discussion

Early in Lamar Heystek's tenure as Davis City Councilmember, he pushed for a living wage ordinance. This ordinance would have required large employers within the city of Davis to provide a living wage for their employees. The Council Majority of Councilmembers Don Saylor, Stephen Souza, and Ruth Asmundson rejected that ordinance in a somewhat contentious proceding.

Instead the council majority led by Stephen Souza and Don Saylor suggested that they were working on a project labor agreement on Target. This issue came up prior to the election on Measure K (Target) in November of 2006 and we have not heard about it since.

Meanwhile last spring, Councilmember Heystek continued to push for a living wage, this one in a less contentious venue--city contracts--a venue in which the city council has complete control, as opposed to a city wide venue where the control is more tenuous.

In late May of 2007, Councilmember Heystek asked staff:

“The council had given staff direction to analyze the issue of the living wage vis-à-vis our contracts when we were either renegotiating or updating those contracts, can you tell us whether that is still on track and what the timeline is on that procedure?”

The response by Bill Emlen was that this was on the radar.

"Councilmember Heystek was particularly concerned with outsourced labor by the city, particularly in light of the recent events at UC Davis regarding the Sodexho workers. He asked Parks and Community Development Director Donna Silva whether there were advantages of in-house over contractual workers."

As the councilmember said at that time:

“I don’t want to sound like a hypocrite when I’m asking the chancellor how we can get some of the food workers in the dining commons to become university employees, so this is a very sensitive issue for me. I just hope that we are earnest in looking at how we fulfill our contractual obligations but then really look at whether we are paying a living wage with regard to these contracts. It is a matter of conscience to me..."

As he told the Vanguard at the time:

"We’re talking about writing letters to the university saying that your contracted workers need to be direct employees, well I think that our own contracted out workers should be direct employees. So how many council members are willing to say one thing to the university but say another thing to our city manager?"

Flash forward now to Tuesday night. Once again, on the consent calendar the council was asked to approve not one but two contracts from outside venues, neither one requiring a living wage.

Councilmember Heystek:

"I simply cannot support a contract that whereby employees get $9 per hour, I brought up the issue of the living wage at my very third meeting, here as a member of this body, there was consensus from that point on, from the point of bringing it up of our list of goals in December of 2006 to be to pursue a framework by which the city of Davis hires contract employees with a living wage. This contract does not provide for a living wage for all of its employees, notwithstanding the benefits that you specified in the contract. I will continue to advocate for a living wage ordinance that covers city contracts and in the spirit of that consensus of this council, I hope that we can come up with a contract arrangement that does provide for a truly living wage. If were to were to expect these people to live in Davis, I will not talk about the merits necessarily of a living wage ordinance—we’ve already weighed in on that as a council. I will not wait until the end of my term to see a living wage ordinance passed. I believe that we must pass contracts that allow us to have a living wage whether or not we have an ordinance today or tomorrow. I understand that staff have the need to approve contracts because we have existing contracts that are expiring in June, but that does not change my belief that a living wage ordinance is needed and that a living wage contract needs to be provided for all of our contract employees… And I hope that we can see the end of 2008 with some action in this regard. Until we have a living wage ordinance passed, I will oppose the contract."

Mayor Sue Greenwald agreed with the councilmember.

"This issue is always troubling to me, back when we were doing our labor negotiations, if you recall, I voted against enhanced benefits for the highest paid workers in town, the management… I was also concerned with some of the wages we were giving to the fire department. The reason I gave at the time was that it was unjust that it was going to come out of the lowest wage workers—one way or another… I totally agree with Lamar, and I think the problem now is that our budget and our long range forecast and everything we’ve done has factored in giving our highest paid workers these enhanced benefits… factor those in and there’s no wiggle room for the lowest paid workers."

The rest of the council was not unsupportive of the principle but took a more middle ground on this issue, preferring to have a discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson expressed concern about the budget. Councilmember Don Saylor expressed concern about methodology for determining how much a living wage contract should be and wanted it to be based on something very real and thus preferred to wait.

Councilmember Lamar Heystek however was not willing to wait. He pressed hard for this to come forth:

"I do not believe that the way we go about approving contracts like these is to put the cart before the horse. In other words, we knew from the year 2006 that this would be a point of discussion. So if it were so important to have a living wage contract before us, then we would have had that discussion, that living wage policy discussion that we’d ask for from the beginning, in it, before these contracts came up. So let’s get that straight, we should have and we did not have a discussion when it was appropriate. We’re having this discussion after we know this is an issue and we are poised to approve not one but two contracts. We’re talking about one right now… You talk about the budgetary issue Madam Mayor Pro, and I think we should be responsible but we should not be balancing our budget on the backs of our lowest paid employees."

Councilmember Heystek's persistence and forcefulness on this issue eventually paid off. Councilmember Stephen Souza found middle ground to which all of the council would eventually agreed to have this contract renegotiated with higher wages for the lowest paid employees along with a future discussion about living wage.

The vendor himself came forward and expressed support in having a living wage and said he was amenable and supportive to whatever contract the council came forward with.

While the council would eventually reach a consensus on this issue, it is clear that the leadership here came from Councilmember Heystek who simply would not take no for an answer on this one. As he expressed to me later, this is not a new issue. He has brought it up numerous times from his third meeting as a councilmember on. The council has said they will take up this issue and yet each year contract extensions have come up, they have delayed and delayed. Finally he would not allow them to delay again.

Will this bring about finally a living wage ordinance to protect those workers who work on outsourced contracts? We shall see. However, the councilmember is clearly correct that if the council is demanding that UC Davis pay its outsourced labor living wage or bring them in house, the city cannot have a moral standing to do that unless they are willing to pay outsourced labor a living wage.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Guest Commentary: Enacting a Living Wage in Davis to Protect and Preserve our Downtown

by Lamar Heystek

As I was poised to take office as the youngest Davis City Councilmember since Bob Black, I reaffirmed my understanding that the Davis Farmers’ Market was a prime purveyor of pungent produce – and proportionally pungent political punditry.

“Keep your eyes and ears open… and your mouth shut!” was the unsolicited nugget of wisdom flung at me by a fellow “elected” (an adjectival noun to this linguist), right as I was about to close the deal on a pound of fingerling potatoes.

She took me by so much surprise that I nearly forgot to put the “e” in potatoes.

“Could you be more explicit?” I asked in response.

However, after much careful thought, I decided to let those wise words go by the wayside in my third meeting as a councilmember when I introduced for a first reading an ordinance that would require big-box retailers to pay a living wage. And I’ve haven’t regretted it since.

My philosophy was that Davis voters deserved to know whether employees of the proposed Target would be paid justly or not. As expected, the move was derided as a political ploy to derail Measure K.

But the passage of Measure K has not discouraged me from pushing the issue further – it has encouraged me.

In the meantime, I’ve asked that we move forward with a living-wage requirement for city of Davis contracts, an idea that the rest of the Council has agreed to look into, the rationale being that our city government should lead by example.

As one of two elected officials serving on the City-Chamber of Commerce 2x2, I am a Chamber member. My campaign headquarters was located in the heart of the downtown on D Street, near Aesop’s Room and across from Crème de la Crème, a gift shop owned by Davis resident Christie Zamora. As someone commented on the Davis Wiki, “Christie… is the epitome of customer service with an amazing attention to detail. When you are in her beautiful shop, you feel like in are in a different world. We are very happy she is in Davis!” And I was fortunate to have her as a neighbor. I had the pleasure of observing her business and interacting with her on a daily basis. Although I currently don’t frequent her shop as often as I used to, I still pray that she stays in business. And as a councilmember, I certainly can help her do so.

People who dismiss the concept of a “big-box” living wage ordinance mislabel it as an anti-business measure, when in fact it is just the opposite. The ordinance I proposed last year would protect scores of local retailers – the heart and soul of our neighborhoods, including the downtown – who otherwise would find it a Herculean task to compete with the likes of Target.

As Chicago Alderman Joe Moore writes in a letter printed in the Chicago Sun-Times, “[a] visit to many of America’s small and medium towns reveals the devastating effect the retail giants have on other businesses. Downtown businesses districts often become virtual ghost towns after a Wal-Mart or other big-box retailer comes to town.”

However, the impact of big-box retail on local economies is not merely an issue for cities the size of ours. Alderman Moore continues by citing a study by the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Center for Urban Economic Development, which concludes that a Wal-Mart on Chicago’s West Side “would actually cost our city more jobs than it creates. This is because big-box retail stores rarely expand the total amount of sales generated in densely populated urban markets. Instead, the new stores take away customers from existing retailers, causing those retailers to scale back operations or close altogether.”

Big-box businesses benefit from economies of scale, which enable retailers like Target to “underprice their competitors and drive them out of business,” as Alderman Moore points out. “But the fact that many of these big-box retailers pay their employees subsistence wages and benefits plays an equal if not greater role.”

My proposed big-box living wage ordinance, like Alderman Moore’s, strives to level the playing field by making large retailers pay decent wages and benefits so that employees can provide for their families and afford to live in the community they are serving, while at the same time helping to protect locally-owned small businesses.

Besides the “anti-business” angle, there are a variety of arguments against a living wage ordinance. Davis Enterprise columnist Rich Rifkin, whom I deeply respect, writes, “If Councilman Heystek’s ambition is to help low-paid workers who are trying to support their families, he should forget his living wage ordinance and push for a more generous EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit).” I took the latter of Mr. Rifkin’s advice: I phoned and wrote to President Bush, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and our federal legislators, asking them to consider expanding the EITC in major tax bills in the future. However, I believe that an important role of our local government is to provide local solutions to local problems. Failing to do so would mean shirking our responsibility as local decision makers.

Alderman Moore concludes his letter by making the following observation: “Competition and low prices certainly are good things, but the competition should be fair and the low prices should not come at the expense of decent wages and benefits for working families.”

A nugget of wisdom indeed.

Lamar Heystek was elected to the Davis City Council in 2006. He will have a monthly column on the People's Vanguard of Davis.

Commentary: Labor Day 2007 Thoughts

Labor Day dates back to the 1880s and was originally founded as a means to give a day of rest to the working people. It was placed in early September as a means distance it on the calendar from the more radical celebrations on May 1. President Grover Cleveland feared that such a date in May could become a commemoration of the Haymarket Riots in Chicago in May of 1886.

In modern days, Labor Day is typically seen as the end of summer and a day of recognition for working people.

It is also a reminder to many the sacrifices and struggle for the rights of working people that have taken place over the last 120 plus years from the fight for 40 hour work week,to the fight for the livable wage and safe working conditions. Many forget now that strikes and protests were often met with violent resistance from the management in coordination from the law. A strike meant replacement workers, violent repression, and risk not only of wages but life and blacklisting.

It is within these contexts that we must recognize the true nature of the struggle for the rights of working people in this country. Our standard of living and middle class lifestyle that people in this country strive to achieve and some take for granted were forged on the blood, sweat and toil of early labor movements.

What I have found interesting and disturbing in my coverage of the Sodexho Worker's struggle is the degree to which anti-unionism is prevalent even in supposedly liberal Davis. For many, there is a clear recognition that labor has played an immense role in the history of this country, however for some, their place is one of the past and not the present. For many the fight for living wages today is not paramount to the fight for safe working environments, the forty hour week, or good wages of the past. Many do not see the threat to turn back many of these protections as equivalent to that struggle. Many do not see that the fight for affordable health care for all, the fight to ensure that each person has access to that health care is not every bit as pertinent today as the struggles of the past were.

But finally and most importantly, I do not think enough people understand what organized labor provides the average worker today. I've lived in a union household all of my life. In recent years, I have seen how poorly many workers are treated by their supervisors even today. I have seen the quality of life struggles that have ensued even with the protections built in through the collective bargaining process, and it is clear to me that without the protection of labor unions, many workers and people would be living very difficult lives and be mistreated by their supervisors without recourse. It is clear to me that the struggle for the living wage and health care is alive and well even in 2007.

It was only last year that Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek introduced a living wage ordinance for large employers in the city of Davis only to be literally shouted down by his colleagues Don Saylor and Stephen Souza. These are two men who right now are attempting to vie for union support even as they opposed living wage in Davis and supported notorious anti-union big box company Target. Mr. Saylor has repeatedly attempted to get back into the good graces of labor with his support for various health care proposals. Mr. Souza has yet to issue a statement of support for the Sodexho workers, Mr. Saylor's support was blatantly half-hearted at best.

However, Presidential Candidate John Edwards summed up the need for supporting labor with his Labor Day weekend statement:

"Labor has been the most important anti-poverty movement in American history and the best tool for strengthening our middle class and helping build One America... I am looking forward to spending the weekend visiting with workers and caucus goers to discuss my plans to build One America where working families have a chance to get ahead, guarantee quality, affordable health care to every American and end the war in Iraq."

And so today, on Labor Day, we need to renew our commitment to pass universal health care so that all Americans have access to the greatest health care coverage in the world. We need to stand in continued to support for strong wages and good working conditions for all. But we need to act locally as well. Councilmember Heystek needs support in his continued fight for the living wage. The city of Davis needs to ensure good living wages for all of its employees, including those who have been outsourced. And we need to stand by in our commitment to the Sodexho Workers as they struggle to become university employees. This is not a novel issue, we are talking about the standard of living and health care for many people who live in our community. On this day, we need to stand with those people and tell those in the position of authority and power that when they impact the wages for one, they are hurting us all.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Councilmember Heystek Discusses His First Year on the Davis City Council

In the latest in my series of interviews, I discussed with Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek his first year on the job.

Overall, how has your first year as Davis City Councilmember gone?

My first year on the Council has gone very well. I constantly ask myself if Davis looks different because I’ve been on the Council. I believe the answer is yes. Then I ask if the difference is a positive or negative one. I would honestly say it’s been more positive.

What have you been most surprised by as far as the job itself is concerned?

Little has surprised me. If I mentioned something, people would probably say, “Why should that surprise you?” Nonetheless, I will say that the relatively minor influence certain councilmembers have on what the agenda regularly looks like continues to frustrate me. In a council-manager form of government, staff has enormous say as to what our week-to-week agenda looks like. As is to be expected, staff is informed by the direction of a majority of the Council. Since I cannot reliably count myself in “the” majority, I have considerably less influence on staff to shape our agenda. I have incessantly explained to the City Manager that I consider myself an “activist” councilmember – in other words, I see my ideal role as a legislator who proposes policies and laws. I should not merely exist on the Council to “vote my agenda packet” as a passive decisionmaker. I’m disappointed that many of the issues I’ve brought to the table for Council consideration have yet to make it to an agenda. It’s really quite a shame.

What are you most proud of accomplishing?

I’m proud of many accomplishments. One of my proudest achievements involves successfully lobbying (behind the scenes and in public) for more funding for street and sidewalk repairs. One of the most basic city services is the pavement, and now, in the current budget, we have over $100,000 more in funding for road rehabilitation. Right now, we’re finally seeing long-awaited improvements to the Alvarado/Anderson roundabout and the southern portion of Covell Boulevard. Several other accomplishments I am proudest of concern environmental responsibility. I’m proud that I proposed and successfully fought for the passage of the strictest agricultural mitigation ordinance in the state – one that requires the preservation of two acres of ag land for every acre developed. While I was the lone vote against the Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District’s aerial spraying campaign last year, I’m proud to have successfully represented a significant portion of our population who felt that aerial spraying, in many ways, represented a larger public health threat. I’m proud that I successfully introduced a citywide goal of “conserving natural resources and preserving the environment,” leading to a sustainability project that includes a campaign to combat global warming. When I proposed an anti-global-warming objective at our goal setting session late last year, a few folks in the room (I won’t say who, but the only people who were there were councilmembers and department heads) laughed out loud. I was extremely shocked by this response. If we can’t be environmentalists in Davis, for God’s sake, where can we? During the same goal setting session, I proposed, albeit unsuccessfully, a goal to “ensure social responsibility.” To his credit, the only other person besides me to vote in favor of this goal was Finance Director Paul Navazio. Even though I did not succeed in having it adopted, I’ve worked in the spirit of this goal since my first Council meeting. I’m proud that I successfully fought to preserve the landmark 1983 civil rights ordinance. I’m proud that I proposed a living wage ordinance for large retailers, putting the issue on the map during my second Council meeting, and supported a visitability and accessibility ordinance to create more habitable housing for physically challenged residents, both of which were defeated by a majority of the Council. The living wage issue will continue to define what exactly our commitment to social responsibility really is, and I look forward to debating it in the future. Finally, I’m proud of my lone vote against the “3rd and B” project. Although I didn’t succeed in halting the project, I believe I successfully laid out the case for careful planning in our most sensitive neighborhoods.

What decision do you most regret?

This may sound cliché, but I don’t regret a thing. It’s not because I don’t believe in any regrets – it’s just that I haven’t learned any new information after the fact that would cause me to change my mind about a previous decision. When I ran for City Council the first time, in 2004, I was a student. A good student. And good students know how to do their homework. I’ve always done my homework as a councilmember.

What development has been most disappointing to you?

I’m greatly disappointed that other cities are eclipsing our commitment to the environment. When Vacaville and Roseville can claim they are doing more for the environment than Davis – and when the symbol of our environmental know-how is a set of broken solar panels at Community Pool that have never worked – I think we have a serious problem. We’ve been resting on our laurels for too long. We’ve been trying to figure how we can grow more rapidly when we should try to sustain the infrastructure and natural resources of our existing footprint.

Overall, do you think that the city is headed in the right direction under the current council?

In some ways, yes; in other ways, no. There is a sense that certain monied interests have too much control at City Hall. I’m not saying those who have a financial stake in the decisions we make don’t deserve a voice in the democratic process. I just wish that voice wouldn’t drown out the voice of the rest of the people. I’ve always argued that financial benefits can be outweighed by unquantifiable costs, and that financial costs can be outweighed by unquantifiable benefits. It’s like that song from “Rent” – "Five hundred, twenty-five thousand, six hundred minutes / How do you measure, measure a year?"

What are your goals for the next year and into the future?

Truly, my goals are to continue to do my homework and remain loyal to my principles and constituents.

If you could pass three things, what would they be?

A living wage ordinance for large retailers, a renter’s rights ordinance and everything I tried to pass in the first two years of my term but couldn’t.

What proposals should progressives be most concerned about coming down the pike?

I think an attempt to water down Measure J and the adoption of radically different General Plan should be the biggest issues for progressives. The voters should stand up in favor of closing various loopholes in Measure J to strengthen their right to determine our land-use destiny. And they should not allow the Council to adopt a new Housing Element that grossly alters the shape of our city.

If you could change one thing about Davis, what would it be?

I would seek to change the mentality of “limousine liberalism” that some people in Davis seem to hold. The hypocrisy of this philosophy is very damaging to our identity as a progressive community.

Regionally, what is the most pressing concern?

I think growth along the I-80 corridor is the most critical regional issue. As the growth of neighboring cities brings their borders closer to ours, we have to be increasingly vigilant of the impacts such growth has on the environment, our infrastructure and our quality of life. Much of the crime we experience in Davis can be attributed to our location on the I-80 corridor. Air quality and the condition of our roads have already been threatened as development pressures have increased.

Can the city of Davis co-exist with Yolo County? Is the pass-through agreement dead?

The City and the County can and must coexist. We are two agencies recognized by the State of California serving many of the same constituents, and these constituents count on both agencies to represent them. The County provides vital services to many Davis residents, and so does the City of Davis. I believe our residents rely mostly on the City, not the County, to ultimately determine the scope of development within our sphere of influence. To that end, the pass-through agreement is alive and well – at least as far as the City is concerned. To be perfectly honest, I’m not exactly sure what the County’s commitment to the pass-through agreement really is. That’s why I’ve personally lobbied supervisors to join us at the table to discuss land use within the context of the pass-through agreement. It’s one thing to talk about the joint study of targeted areas for development adjacent to our borders, which we’ve made abundantly clear we are unwilling to do at this time. It’s another thing altogether to talk about our basic relationship under a mutual pact that has existed for the better part of 20 years. It is imperative that w have this discussion before either agency embarks on any serious attempt at large-scale peripheral development.

Describe the funniest thing that has happened since you have been on the council.

I arrived at a closed session and saw what I thought were my shirts in a garment bag hanging in the conference room. At the end of the meeting, I asked everyone what my dry-cleaned shirts were doing there. Had I brought them in by mistake and simply forgotten? But why would I bring extra shirts to a Council meeting? Then I found out: apparently another councilmember had picked up my dry cleaning for me! Strange but true.

How has the People’s Vanguard of Davis changed Davis politics or has it?

I don’t know if the People’s Vanguard of Davis has changed Davis politics per se – it has endured no matter the medium – but I’m convinced it has changed political expression in Davis. Because of this blog, people are more engaged than ever in the democratic process. People are now more inspired to weigh in on issues they never would have read about in other print media. People are more freely sharing their views, and these views have a broader audience. The comments people leave are richer and more revealing than anything you would read on the heavily edited op-ed page of the local newspapers. The blog provides citizens with a genuine opportunity to be heard and therefore to shape public policy. As a decisionmaker, I appreciate reading the insights my fellow Davisites share. People underestimate the power of public comment. If more people spoke up at Council meetings and in other venues, the city would definitely look a lot different.

What question should I have asked but did not?

You never asked me if I got along with the rest of the Council. The answer is an emphatic “yes.” I can honestly say I interact well with each and every one of my colleagues on both professional as well as personal terms. I have strived to be as approachable as possible not only to my constituents but also my colleagues, who are human beings just like me. When I was elected, I was determined to be as much a positive presence on the Council as possible. I said during my “inauguration” speech that we should work with one another, even as we vote against one another. I never wanted to be seen as perpetuating anything negative that might have preceded my election. Since my age has unfortunately been a concern for some voters – I’m the youngest councilmember since Bob Black – I’ve strived greatly to behave in such a way that the issue can’t possibly be used against me in the future.

Since you used to work at Safeway, paper or plastic?

Believe it or not, I bring my own bags to Safeway. We (I mean they) give you a discount for reusing them. But what kind do I reuse? Paper. Ironically, I never liked bagging customers’ groceries in paper because customers who asked for paper usually were much fussier! To this day, whenever I run into a former customer, I can tell them exactly how they liked their groceries bagged. The “paper in plastic” customers stand out the most.

What is your favorite food?

I love haggis. What can I say – I’m part Scottish!

Do you have time to read a book these days and if so, what are you reading?

The only “books” I have time to read nowadays are City Council agenda packets, but there’s one book my boss at the Yolo Family Resource Center loaned me to read. It’s called Catalytic Leadership: Strategies for an Interconnected World. There’s also a book I bought at former Mayor Susie Boyd’s garage sale after the 2004 election. I still haven’t gotten around to read it. It’s called Who’s Running This Town? I’m curious to know...

Harry Potter or Sicko?

I have yet to see Sicko, but I’d choose Michael Moore over J.K. Rowling any day of the week. Sicko is on my list of movies to watch – if I can pull myself away from those agenda packets.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Examining City Council Goals and Objectives

The Davis City Council will have another public workshop this Friday. First they will conclude their workshop on "Improving Transactional Effectiveness" and then they will have a staff presentation on the status of council goals and objectives.

The council has eight goals and objective for 2007-08:

• Maintain and improve the infrastructure
• Achieve long-term financial stability
• Enhance the vitality of downtown
• Provide a mix of high-quality housing to meet community needs
• Conserve natural resources and protect the environment
• Ensure top quality fire, police and emergency services
• Ensure organizational strength
• Promote economic development

This article will look at some of the specific policy objectives under each heading to see where the council has succeeded at least in their own goals and also discuss things that should have been included but were not.

The big objectives under "Maintain and Improve the Infrastructure," deal with the water supply and the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. In both cases, the city has moved along about at the rate that they wanted to. Both of these projects are massive and will end up greatly increasing Davis residents' water rates. The key question right now is whether this is what the city should be doing.

Last year, the city council agreed to spend $50,000 to $75,000 upgrading the parks and facilities master plan. It took a reconsideration of an agenda item after the initial item was defeated, due to the absence of Councilmember Asmundson. Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek would have preferred to have spent that money on unfinished projects from the previous plan rather than updating the current plan with an expensive survey.

Missing from the list is any upgrade in the quality of the roads, the workability of some of the traffic intersections and traffic lights.

In terms of the next goal, "Achieving Long-term Financial Stability," the council had a workshop where they look at various revenue enhancements, mainly in terms of new taxes.

The big thing that they did not do was seek to look at areas where spending has greatly increased that will end up costing the city. One such area has to do with upper level employees pensions and health benefits. These current practices for people in upper management may end up either bankrupting the city in future years, or at the very least leading to a large cutback in other sorts of spending as the city needs to get on top of a wave of retirements.

The third goal, is to "Enhance the Vitality of Downtown." Here it does not seem that they have proceeded on a number of their goals. Moreover, the big one that they did proceed on was the 3rd and B Visioning Process. My concern with their direction on this and other projects is that they are looking for ways to revitalize the downtown that are threatening the character of the city and the downtown. Tearing down some of the more historic buildings in the 3rd and B district is going to do far more to destroy the character of the city than it is to help downtown. Moreover, they have enacted projects such as Target that threaten the vitality of downtown.

The fourth goal, is to "Provide a Mix of High Quality Housing to Meet Community Needs." This is an area where I do not think the city has done enough. They have appointed a Housing Element Steering committee. We shall see what that process yields. What this city needs in my view, is a commitment to developing housing that families and younger and new home owners can afford. Not just an allotment of "affordable" housing for low income people that are really limited equity homes. We're talking about moving away from the model that has produced $500,000 to $600,000 homes. That means producing smaller houses on smaller lots and greater density of that housing. However, this is nowhere to be found on the city's goals.

The fifth goal, is to "Conserve Natural Resources and Protect the Environment." They have a list of items, most of which I have not heard of and most of which I do not believe have been acted upon. They do talk about recycling and composting. But I think the city needs to go further here. They mention the Davis Greenway Concept that includes locally based sustainability farms at the city's edge, but there needs to be, in light of county proposals, an all-out commitment to ag land preservation. Second, there needs to be a push for more electric vehicles for in-town use rather than internal combustion engines. Third, there needs to be a stronger commitment to solar power in new housing and perhaps even incentives for existing homeowners to purchase solar panels. Fourth, as they do in the north, they should convert all city road signs to solar energy.

The sixth goal, is to "Ensure Top Quality Fire, Police and Emergency Services." Here they have achieved a good number of their goals. It took them much longer than anticipated but they got the cameras and computers fully operational and for the most part reliable. They hired a police chief. For my purposes the top needs of the city are that we need more police officers hired and on the streets. I would like the city to look into higher standards for training in exchange for higher salary. The city is looking into a fourth fire station, and while I understand some of the concerns of a fourth fire station, particularly with regards to money, the suggestion has been made that the taxpayers could vote on it. I think that's a reasonable proposal from my observations. I can also see the need for a city-owned ladder truck, especially as the city continues to build taller and taller buildings.

The seventh goal, is to "Ensure Organizational Strength." This deals primarily with city staff. As I have suggested previously, I just do not like the city manager driven model of city government. I think it leaves elected council members, especially those who are in the minority, without the resources they need to do a good job of representing their constituency. Reliance on city staff has proven problematic at times. So one of the things I would like to see are reforms and changes to the overall structure.

A goal that is listed on their list of goals is to have in place by 2008 a living wage ordinance for City contracts and contract workers. This was a suggestion made by Councilmember Lamar Heystek that I strongly support. Will the current council majority support this goal? We shall see.

Finally, and this all appears to be future oriented, "Promote Economic Development." So far, I think this has not been an area of success. The first item listed there, is continue to work to ensure sustainability of Westlake Shopping Center. It has been over a year since Food Fair left this shopping center, and amazingly the existing businesses have primarily survived. But I do not think the city has acted aggressively enough to maintain this shopping center.

Second, they mention Trader Joe's. Here I think the city has really squandered opportunities by allowing the situation at University Mall with RAS. I talked to councilmembers after the lawsuit was announced and they felt that people just wanted Trader Joe's and did not care how it got here. Since that time, I have spoken to many people on the street and on the blog and I do not sense that type of attitude. Most do not understand why it has to be where RAS is currently located and most sympathize with RAS. The city lost a lot of their leverage by providing a zoning change prior to an agreement between University Mall and RAS.

Third, is the pursuit of the business and high tech research park. This is the issue that was postponed from last meeting's agenda. It figures to be an interesting battle on the slow growth side as to whether it is better to develop that as a residential development or a high tech research park. The latter has gained more prominence since the Tsakaopoulos proposal has emerged, although that is mainly a proposal for housing developments in exchange for the Stem Cell Research facility, it is unlikely to be available without the housing development.

Finally, we can put the Davis Manor in the same position as Westlake Shopping Center. Both of these locations would make far more sense for Trader Joe's and other additions than the University Mall. The council is seeming to allow two key neighborhood shopping areas lie underutilized for a substantial period of time.

A number of the goals on this list are laudable if overly ambitious. However, my sense over the last two months is that much of these are taking place at the expense of the existing character of the city. I do not oppose housing development, vitalization of downtown, or economic development, but I would like to see plans that integrate these projects into the existing character, rather than what I think is a rapid destruction of existing character. Make no mistake, Davis is under siege in a lot of ways. The question for Davis residents, is "Do you want a city that continues to look and feel like Davis? Or, "Do you want a city that looks more like Fairfield, Vacaville, or even worse some of the more rapid growing Central Valley Communities like Elk Grove and Natomas?" These are the key questions we must ask ourselves as we try to go forward with many of these laudable and necessary goals.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Heystek Continues to Fight for Living Wage in Davis

Last fall, the Davis City Council struck down an effort by Councilmember Lamar Heystek to institute a living wage ordinance that would require large retailers to pay a 10 dollar-per-hour starting wage and three dollar-per-hour's worth of benefits to their employees.

By a 3-2 vote, the council majority of Stephen Souza, Don Saylor, and Ruth Asmundson rejected this ordinance. Only Mayor Sue Greenwald joined Councilmember Heystek in support. They argued that it may be unconstitutional (a notion struck down by City Attorney Harriet Steiner) and questioned why it would only apply to large employers. The council majority saw this as a poison pill aimed in the direction of Target just six weeks before the November election.

However, subsequent actions by Heystek have shown this criticism to be misplaced and the council majority as having severely misjudged the commitment by Councilmember Heystek to bring about a living wage.

In January, Heystek moved for the council to have the objective to have an ordinance that addressed a living wage effecting city contracts. That motion was supported unanimously by the council.

This past Tuesday (May 22, 2007), Heystek brought the issue up once again, asking staff:

“The council had given staff direction to analyze the issue of the living wage vis-à-vis our contracts when we were either renegotiating or updating those contracts, can you tell us whether that is still on track and what the timeline is on that procedure?”

City Manager Bill Emlen acknowledged that they had not started, however, he said, "it is something that is on our radar."

Councilmember Heystek was particularly concerned with outsourced labor by the city, particularly in light of the recent events at UC Davis regarding the Sodexho workers. He asked Parks and Community Development Director Donna Silva whether there were advantages of in-house over contractual workers.

Ms. Silva made it a point to clarify that the city policy is not simply based on cost, but also on other concerns--trucks, supervision, overhead, facility costs among other things. She also specified that for certain kinds of work contractual workers have an advantage especially when the job does not require much contact with the public and communication skills. She suggested it was more efficient to contract out than to hire in-house.

Heystek responded:

“I don’t want to sound like a hypocrite when I’m asking the chancellor how we can get some of the food workers in the dining commons to become university employees, so this is a very sensitive issue for me. I just hope that we are earnest in looking at how we fulfill our contractual obligations but then really look at whether we are paying a living wage with regard to these contracts. It is a matter of conscience to me..."

Mayor Greenwald also expressed concern about the health care situation of contractual employees.

Heystek however remains committed both to the living wage and to ending the outsourcing of labor.

"I would like to see if they’d consider bringing our contracted out workers first of all to a living wage standard and ultimately bringing them into the city’s direct payroll."

Moreover, he told The Vanguard that he questions the commitment of those on the council majority to this issue, while some of them have at the same time written letters to the chancellor of the university.

"We’re talking about writing letters to the university saying that your contracted workers need to be direct employees, well I think that our own contracted out workers should be direct employees. So how many council members are willing to say one thing to the university but say another thing to our city manager?"

The council majority does seem to want to have it both ways. They recognize that this is a generally liberal community when it comes to labor issues. Souza and Saylor are up for re-election in just over 12 months. They know they need to appeal to that wing of the Democratic Party in this community in order to win re-election, at the same time they have committed a tremendous amount of city resources to upper management in the city, while leaving considerably less for those at entry levels.

Furthermore, while they have a need to appeal to liberal elements in this city, they have strong backing of developers and business owners who would oppose attempts to pass a living wage ordinance, just as the council opposed efforts to apply it to Target. Now the city has lost the ability to ensure that hundreds of Target employees receive a living wage.

The council majority wants it both ways, but just as Don Saylor's letter to the chancellor on Sodexho showed his hand, he and his colleagues' inaction on living wage, shows theirs. They continue to want to have it both ways until those in this community that stand behind the true principles of labor rights and social justice stand up and tell them no.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Saylor Tries to Have It Both Ways on Sodexho Struggle

As I opened the press packet from the May 23, 2007 Protest in support of the UC Davis Food Service workers, I was surprised to see a letter to Chancellor Vanderhoef from Davis City Councilmember Don Saylor in support of the Sodexho Workers.

After all, Councilmember Saylor has at best a mixed record on labor issues. When Don Saylor first ran for the Davis Joint Unified School Board in 1995, he was endorsed by the Davis Teacher's Association. However, four years later he did not receive their endorsement. During the course of his first term on the board, the union often found him unreliable. He even was the only member to vote against their contract on one occasion.

As a member of the Davis City Council, Saylor came out last year against a living wage ordinance. Back in August, then newly elected Councilmember Lamar Heystek tried to get a living wage ordinance put on the agenda. Saylor at that time led the way to prevent such an ordinance. By a 3-2 vote, the council prevented that item from being placed on the agenda as a regular agenda item. However, Councilmember Heystek brought it back in late September as an item prepared by a member of the council.

During the debate on this item, Saylor attacked Mr. Heystek's motivations for this item even though he and his colleagues had encouraged Heystek to do so.

Saylor criticized him by saying:

“To bring it up as a discussion is appropriate. To bring it up as a full-blown ordinance for a first reading, that’s not talking about policy, that’s talking about politics in a lead-up to an election.”

Thus given Councilmember Saylor's history on labor issues it was surprising to see his letter in the protester's packet. However, a thorough reading of the letter shows it to be mixed support at best.

Saylor writes to Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef,

"I rarely weigh in on internal matters of campus operations and recognize that there are many aspects to operational issues of this sort... However, I am personally very sympathetic to the concerns of these employees and their families. I know many other Davis community members share that view. I believe it is in the best interest of the campus to resolve this issue in a collaborative manner in the near term, rather than face a protracted dispute."

From the language here you can see that while on the one hand he recognizes that this is an internal matter that has many aspects to it--which is a typical statement by Saylor, he has sympathy for the concerns and he urges a resolution, notice he did not urge the chancellor to accede to the demands of the workers and grant them university status.

He only goes as far as to suggest discussions.

Later in the letter he comes back to this point:

"Again, I am not privy to the array of factors you must consider in weighing this issue."

This is the point he often makes to those who question his motivations and decisions, the public is simply unaware of the intricate deals of such arrangements. Thus he is granting deference to the Chancellor but in so doing he is giving the Chancellor a clear out. The Chancellor could simply say, you are right, you do not know the details and if you did, you would take my position.

Once again, Saylor will only go as far as to urge talks--not demand action.

"Nevertheless, I urge you to meet personally with the workers and their chosen representatives as soon as possible to discuss their proposal that UC Davis alter its relationship with Sodexho and hire the same, dedicated workers directly."

Clearly, Saylor is trying to play both sides in this dispute as he so often does. He grants sufficient deference to the Chancellor, he has a considerably nuanced position, and he only goes so far as to urge talks but not recommend action.

Compare this letter to the April 10, 2007 letter from Councilmember Heystek to Chancellor Vanderhoef.

"I was alarmed when I heard UC Davis contracts out over 500 service workers..."

Furthermore:

"Approximately 550 contracted-out workers employed by Sodexho and custodial contractors are organizing with student supports and AFSCME in hopes of becoming UC Davis employees. I support this effort out of a concern for the well-being of the UC Davis community."

He goes on to say:

"Having been a member of three labor unions, two as a University employee and one as a shop steward in the grocery industry, I believe that UC Davis should make responsible employment decisions and adopt policy based on social justice and economic equality... The right to affordable health care, decent wages and, most importantly, equitable treatment of employees doing similar work are values the University should uphold. Furthermore, the money currently used to pay Sodexho should stay within the university community."

Given the language that Councilmember Heystek uses compared with that of Councilmember Saylor, which councilmember really believes in social justice and economic equality and which one is going through the motions and trying to have it both ways?

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

2006: The Year in Davis Review

These last days we will have a countdown of the top 10 stories from Davis in 2006. We continue with our seventh installment, No.3 Davis votes for a "Green" Target.

Target is perhaps the most written about topic on this blog. I note that there are 37 blog entries on this blog that have Target as a label. The decision by the Davis City Council to place the issue of Target on the ballot preceded the formation of this blog. The issue of Target became among the most important local issues during the fall campaign.

I began the fall campaign planning to vote against the construction of Target. There were two primary reasons for this. One, there are no stores like Target in Davis. That was a reason given by both sides of the issue--in both support of and opposition to building a Target. But for me, what makes Davis special is that it is a small college town without a lot of the huge commercial enterprises that blight our countryside across this nation. If we cannot keep a giant corporate conglomerate out of Davis—what hope do we have in the rest of the country.

The second reason for opposing Target was, following from the first, I am a believer in small and locally owned businesses and good paying union jobs. I think stores like Target give us cheap merchandise and not in the good sense and poor customer service. I want the knowledgeable salesperson to help me with my purchases not a person hired at ridiculously low wages who knows as little as I do about the general products. And I want well-paid and well-treated employees who are not treated as mere commodities.

However, and this is something I realize more and more, what really angers me is not people who oppose my viewpoints because I enjoy differences of opinion and conversing. No, what really angers me is when people are dishonest and deceptive. The Target campaign was dishonest and deceptive.

If you want to make the argument that we need a Target because it provides us with cheap products in-town that people would have to drive out of town to buy, I will disagree with you that that should be a rationale for bringing in a Target. However, it is a fair argument and not one that I am going to complain about.

However, the marketing of the “green Davis-friendly target” was nauseating beyond words. And duplicitous. They sold Target in Davis by changing their trademark color from red to green. Somehow that was supposed to symbolize that Target fit in with Davis values.

The Davis Enterprise in their October 15, 2006 endorsement of Target closed with this:

"Davis' Target store will be an environmental showplace as well--one of only 10 retail stores worldwide... that have achieved LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification."

Theresa Francis in writing a letter to the Davis Enterprise actually had the best response, “I'm going to open a Hummer dealership in a giant LEED building; that way I can help save the environment.” And that sums it up. You have a giant corporation with world-wide impact on the environment. Opening a LEED building in Davis is not going to change that. Nor does it address the labor polices of the company which are also quite bad.

Both PG&E and Target have poor environmental records and both tried to sell themselves as environmentally friendly. It was an insult to the intelligence of the Davis voters. Unfortunately, this is not the only example of the pro-Target side trying to manipulate the voters on the issue of the environment.

On November 5, 2006 we write:

“A November 1, 2006 advertisement in the Davis Enterprise suggested that the EPA was in support of Measure K. The EPA spokesperson wrote a letter to the editor that appeared in the Davis Enterprise, clarifying that the EPA had not taken a position on the Target Development.

The text quoted in the advertisement was verbatim from the emails exchanged between the EPA's Project Manager and Councilmember Don Saylor. However, those quotes were juxtaposed with other material to suggest that the EPA had in fact supported the measure. This is a clear attempt to change the meaning of the information that the EPA provided to Councilmember Saylor.

Saylor completely twisted the words of the EPA to suggest to the public that the EPA was supporting this project. This is a gross attempt by Saylor to manipulate the public into supporting the Target project and Measure K.”

The EPA then wrote a letter making it clear that they took “no position regarding the proposed Target development.”

This was just one of the misleading acts committed by Davis City Councilmembers acting as supporters of Measure K. Then we have the entire living wage issue. The major problem was that Target was proposing bringing in 200-250 jobs into Davis with their store opening. Now research suggests that is a misleading figure at best because there are generally coinciding job losses when big box retail stores open in a given market. However, even granting those figures, the average worker would make minimum wage. As recent statistics demonstrate, that is not even sufficient for a single-wage earner with no family to be able to afford a one-bedroom apartment in Davis.

Newly elected Councilmember Lamar Heystek raised this issue at one of his first council meetings on August 1, 2006. Heystek at that meeting asked for the council to agendize a living wage ordinance for discussion. The council majority voted down that request. Councilmember Stephen Souza specifically recommended to Heystek that he bring it up as a councilmember’s item and do the legwork himself. This led to an agenda item on the September 18, 2006 agenda to create a living wage that would pays workers of large retail stores $10/ hour instead of minimum wage.

• Saylor complained at that meeting, “To bring it up as a discussion is appropriate. To bring it up as a full-blown ordinance for a first reading, that’s not talking about policy, that’s talking about politics in a lead-up to an election.”
  
  
• Souza wrote a letter to the editor suggesting, “The particular living wage ordinance was trotted out at the last moment before other council members could review or comment on the measure.”

One of the points that Souza made on the night of September 18, 2006 was that he and Saylor had been working secretly on a project labor agreement. Until that moment the actions of Souza & Saylor were not known to either Mayor Sue Greenwald or Councilmember Lamar Heystek.

"We [Souza and Saylor] have been working on that and we've almost completed it, we're hoping that these actions won't jeopardize it, because all parties have been in agreement so far to date... We were hoping that we'd be able to bring that to you as an announcement, but we have not got it completed but we are very close to having it completed."

This rationale was used to quash the proposal for a living wage. However, we discovered in November, coincidentally right before the election, that there were negotiations for a project labor agreement but it involved not Target workers but those who would construct the Target store. So Souza clearly misled the community and the council of what was going on.

As we discussed at the time at some length, these negotiations occurred outside of the authorization by the City Council. Members of the Davis City Council, Souza and Saylor did this on his own.

Souza was misleading in his characterization at the September 18, 2006 meeting when he led us to believe that this would be some sort of broad labor agreement. Souza and Saylor were both unscrupulous in their back door deal cutting.

As Heystek would write in a letter to the Davis Enterprise:

“I am disappointed that the exclusive group working on behalf of Mr. Dewes is interested in pursuing labor issues only insofar as it will win the election for Target. Should Measure K pass, the days after Nov. 7 will surely test their mettle when it comes to fixing the long-term integrity of Target's labor practices. I invite them to express a full commitment to this issue by supporting legally tested safeguards such as a living-wage ordinance. It's the right thing to do.”

In the November 2, 2006 Davis Enterprise article Souza played down the importance of this announcement.

“We don’t want to make a big hoopla about this…We don’t want to say anything about it, and then after the election we could say something.”

You will note that the date this occurred was the Thursday before the election. You will also note that it is now nearly two months later and I have yet to hear an announcement of a project labor agreement. Was this a cynical manipulation by Souza and Saylor in order to prevail in what was a very close election?

Once again, we see a very deceptive campaign run by the supporters of the Target Project. The opposition to Target was outspent by nearly a 20-1 margin. The supporters of Target promised people cheap consumer goods, a green and a labor friendly Target, and that mustered them an impressive victory by less than 700 votes. The opposition to Target against all odds nearly were able to pull off an improbable victory only to come up just short. For that, the Target campaign and ballot measure is our No.3 story of 2006.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting