November Update: Republicans Fuel Aghazarian's Senate Campaign Against Wolk

Republican Party Gives Big Money to Aghazarian

The Sacramento Bee's Capitol Alert reported yesterday that the California Republican Party poured roughly $345,000 into Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian's state Senate campaign last week. Aghazarian is running for the seat of termed-out Sen. Mike Machado and is opposed by Assemblywoman Lois Wolk who represents Yolo and Solano Counties.

That means that the Republican party has already dumped over one million dollars into this race. However as the Capitol Alert points out, that may have more to do with the lack of competitive State Senate Races than anything else.

The same article reported the party donated $595,000 to former Assemblyman Tony Strickland. Strickland is running against former Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson down in the Santa Barbara-Ventura area in a campaign to succeed termed-out Sen. Tom McClintock (who is now running for Congress against Charlie Brown).

"The races are the only two of the 20 Senate seats up for election in November where competition is expected."

The Capitol Alert goes on to argue this is an uphill battle for Republicans. The most recent voter registration statistics show that Democrats hold a 47 to 31.5 advantage. Four years ago, Gary Podesta, a former Stockton Mayor, challenged Machado. He spent nearly $10 million to unseat him.

However, that was almost a different district. In October of 2004, Democrats held a 10-point registration advantage over Republicans, now they hold a 15.5 point advantage.

"Allan Hoffenblum, the publisher of the California Target Book, which analyzes political races in the state, said the Aghazarian donation was to send a message to GOP donors.

"It is a statement by the GOP leadership that they are going to take that race seriously," Hoffenblum said.

In the early money race, Aghazarian has a significant financial advantage, with more than quadruple the cash-on-hand of Wolk.

As of mid-May, Aghazarian had $530,000 in the bank, with $44,000 in debts. Since then, he has received another $105,000 from three local GOP county committees as well as the big recent check from the state party. That brings his rough total to $936,000.

Wolk had $176,000 in her treasury as of mid-May, with $20,000 in debts.

The Democratic Party, however, is expected to have plenty to spend to contest both seats in the fall. The California Democratic Party reported more than $7.9 million in the bank as of May, a $3.8 million advantage over the Republican Party, which reported $4.18 million."

Hoffenblum went on to say that no Democrat in California will lose for lack of money.

SIEU May Back Redistricting Measure on November's Ballot

Meanwhile, the lack of competitive races will further fuel a push for redistricting.

The big news on that front might be that SEIU, one of the largest unions in the state, may buck the Democratic Party and back Proposition 11, the redistricting measure on the November Ballot.

Anthony York at Capitol Weekly reports SEIU is considering backing Proposition 11, the redistricting measure on the November ballot:

"The fact that SEIU finds itself divided, and possibly at odds with Democratic Party leadership over redistricting is the latest illustration of an internal belief that the union, which represents nearly 2 million people nationwide, is powerful enough to take its own stand, regardless of what other political or labor leaders may think."

"We're large enough to take risks," says [Courtni] Pugh. "We're going to do what's best for working people, and for our membership."

York writes:

"If SEIU does wind up backing Proposition 11, it would be in the face of opposition from Democratic Party leadership in Washington and Sacramento, and from some other state labor groups...

But under the direction of President Andy Stern, SEIU has sought to assert itself as a national political force, orchestrating a divorce from the country’s largest labor organization, the AFL-CIO, and affirming its political independence."

York also points out that during the last election cycle, the union won 11 of the 12 Democratic legislative primaries it participated in.

That includes here in the 8th Assembly District, where union-backed Mariko Yamada was able to pull off what was widely considered a monumental upset primarily due to an influx of independent expenditure money from unions and union support on the ground.

From a political perspective however, this potential move by SEIU makes little sense--threatening to alienate allies and weaken their overall political clout.

It would seem like electing Barack Obama should be the biggest focus from the union--and that is clearly the case.

"Pugh says SEIU members from California will be farmed out across the Western states, developing ground campaigns and focused on boosting Latino turnout nationwide to help boost Obama’s prospects."

Nevertheless, if SEIU carries through on this threat on Proposition 11, it will carry with it some interesting ramifications. In our opinion, that would be a huge strategic blunder for a union that has been mired with internal turmoil and has shwon itself to be an effective organizer on the political front.

In mid-June, the Vanguard wrote more extensively on the redistricting issue. The core belief is that it likely will not have the positive impact that its backers believe.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Board Approves $120 Parcel Tax for November Ballot

The Davis Joint Unified School Board met early on Wednesday to determine among other things, the amount that the District would seek for the November Parcel Tax.

The Board determined that the new parcel tax would be a $120 increase--the amount that they determined was needed to continue to provide the current level of service to the students and the community.

The board also made the determination that the apartment unit rate would be $50 (a slight decrease from the projected $60 increase). That means that the renter's share would like be no more than $25 or around a $2 per month increase. Given all of the rental expenses, the average renter will not even notice the parcel tax even if the property owner passes along the cost to the tenants.

Despite the early hour, a number of community members came to the meeting to express both support and opposition to the board. Representatives from the Teach Peace organization lobbied the board to add a component for peace and conflict resolution education as an inducement to get a number of activists to help on the parcel tax.

There were also a few renters who came to speak out against the parcel tax in response apparently to the flier that circulated in some apartment complexes [see yesterday's Vanguard story].

A fair amount of disinformation and misperceptions are being spread around the community about the parcel tax and the type of taxes that the school district can levy.

Contrary to popular belief, Chief Business Officer Bruce Colby told the board that the school district had no authority to levy a sales tax. Moreover, they also did not have the authority to request another agency levy a sales tax on their behalf. Schools are funded at the local level primarily through property taxes and property owners receive some protection from Proposition 13 that requires a two-thirds vote in order to raise any sort of taxes.

In addition, the district is required to lay out to the public exactly how the parcel tax will be used and the type of programs it will fund. This is a very specific requirement and the district will have an oversight committee that examines the spending to make sure parcel tax money is spent appropriately.

One important point to make, is that almost all of the spending is to hire teachers to run key programs. As one board member put it, these are the programs that make Davis schools what they are.

At the elementary school level, the parcel tax funds three programs--the elementary science program (8 positions), the music program (3.4 positions), and the librarian program (just over 4 positions). Those three programs account for %1.25 million of the $2.37 million total.

At the secondary level, the parcel tax will pay for a number of partial positions including science, math, music, and English. It funds 1.5 positions for the Junior High Librarian Services and it also funds $325,000 for the athletics programs.

In all, these are the programs that faced cutbacks last winter and spring. These are the programs that brought parents, students, and teachers to school board meetings in protest of proposed cuts. These represent a total of around 27 positions that would be saved.

Commentary:

I was expecting that school board to approve a parcel tax that was just slightly under $100 per year. I was surprised that they went as high as $120. However, the reason they decided to do that is that that is what they determined their needs to be. If the community passes this parcel tax, the school district can continue to fund the key programs that differentiates Davis from another school district.

This will be a tough fight. Polling showed at the $140 level, that the public support was only around 57%, well below the two-thirds requirement. The school district is going to have to launch and run a campaign to win this. It is going to be expensive and difficult. They will be running it during a time when most are going to focus on the Presidential Election.

We have seen already that there will be those who actively oppose the parcel tax. In the past, the district has been able to run opposition free. Two weeks ago, John Munn, former School Board Member who represents the local taxpayers association came before the board to lay out what the board needed to do in order to gain the support of the taxpayers association--it was basically accountability factors that the district had already done for the Measure Q campaign and the passage of that parcel tax.

Finally, yesterday at the board meeting, I publicly endorsed the parcel tax. Last winter and spring, I sat in on the board meetings. I talked with students, parents, and teachers. I saw the pain that the budget cuts would cause. I saw the fear in the eyes of the students at the thought of losing their teachers and their programs. And I decided at that point that I never wanted another child to have to go through that painful process again. The idea that children had to march to save their schools, to save their teachers, to save their classes, is simply wrong.

Those who want to hold the district accountable for mistakes made under the direction of others are wanting to punish the wrong people for the wrong reasons. The bulk of the budget crisis that we see is not due to fiscal mismanagement by the current board and district staff, it is due to a devastating statewide economic picture combined with a drop in attendance in the local school district.

The bottom line is that the amount of money needed to bridge the gap without a new revenue source means that teachers and programs will have to be cut. At the end of the day, it is unfair to punish these students for the perceived mistakes of others.

This parcel tax will sunset in three years. The previous parcel tax was passed for four years. That means that the two parcel taxes will sunset at the same time and the district can make the determination at that point, how much the district needs. And the public can then decide if the district has spent its money wisely and can make the determination as to whether to continue to supplement statewide educational spending to make Davis Schools among the best in the state.

The voters of Davis have much in the way of recourse here. They will have full authority to approve this current parcel tax in November. The next year will see three school board members face reelection. And there are always more radical means of expression, just ask Woodland.

Once again, I fully support the passage of the parcel tax. I firmly believe we have no other choice in order to continue to educate the students of Davis to the best of our ability.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Vanguard Radio Tonight 6 PM on KDRT 101.5 FM

The Vanguard Radio Show Tonight on KDRT 101.5 FM from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM will have two guests: Waterford Mayor William Broderick-Villa and Waterford Unified School District Trustee Vicky Johnson.

Back in March, the Vanguard reported that Waterford was having problems stemming from the relationship between their Superintendent Howard Cohen, a former Principal at Davis High School, and Tahir Ahad and Total School Solutions.

On Thursday, the board will meet to determine whether or not to extend the contract of Superintendent Cohen on the eve of a new school board possibly being seated. Mayor Broderick-Villa, a math teacher and Board Member Johnson will update us on the situation in Waterford and discuss some of the background of what went on there.

There are amazing parallels to DJUSD and its relationship with Tahir Ahad and Total School Solutions.

Landlords Trying to Mobilize Students Against Parcel Tax?

Vanguard Analysis Shows Scare Tactics and Deception Used in Flier Passed Out At an Apartment Complex

The Vanguard received late word last night that some landlords may be trying to mobilize their student tenants against the parcel tax.

A flier was apparently passed around at least one apartment complex outlining the parcel tax, making the case as to why students should be concerned, and then asking them to attend today's school board meeting which is at 9 am in the East Conference Room in the district office located at 526 B Street.

"With our tenants facing higher enrollment fees and gas prices at the pump, we have had increased inquiries regarding the proposed new school tax of $80-$140 per house and $40-70 per apartment unit per year..."

This sounds scary until you actually do the math. First, the general cost passed on to students is about half of the per unit price, meaning they are looking at a $20 to $35 dollar PER YEAR increase. Broken down to a monthly basis, you are talking $3 per month.

Even the increase to $196 PER UNIT PER YEAR for ALL school taxes would mean at most $8 to $9 per month for the student. In other words, students are not going to feel this increase. Landlords may, but not students.

"There are three (3) school age students in the 300 units we surveyed on Alvarado, which averages one (1) student per 100 apartments. One has to wonder how the School Board decided that an apartment should pay half of the amount of a house when there are most likely 50 to 100 kids per 100 houses. Why should UCD student housing pay 50 to 100 times more per student than houses do? Shouldn't the tax be proportional to burden on the school system?"

The logic is somewhat subjective. The public pays for public schools regardless of whether or not there are school aged kids in the residence. The tax burden is generally spread based on ability to pay. The numbers game is somewhat of a shell game to begin with. 50 to 100 times more sounds very scary until again you realize that the student in total is paying at most $8 to $9 per month as the result of the parcel tax combined with all other taxes and would only pay an additional $3 per month for this new tax. Remember many students share a residence, meaning that the burden on each individual is very small.

The leaflet does raise a valid point however here:

"Our concern is that there was no study to show how much burden apartments should carry and that eventually these taxes result in rent increases."

And that is something to look into. However, the point is unfortunately wrapped in some distortions and apparent scare tactics. A $200 per year tax per unit is not going to result in a huge rent increase on a per monthly basis.

The leaflet then shifts the burden to the Davis Schools Foundation. Pointing out that they raised 1.7 million in donations last year.

They ask:

"Should the School Board add a new parcel tax every year to cover costs, or should the School Foundation continue fundraising?"

This is a red-herring. First of all, the school board is not going to add a new parcel tax every year. Second, the school foundation is going to continue fundraising. However, the school foundation, as great as they are, is not going to sustain that level of fundraising indefinitely. The idea was to bridge the gap until the school board could find a more reliable stream of revenue to cover the deficit between spending needs and revenue.

The leaflet then concludes:

"The school board will have to hope the uninformed UCD students will vote for a tax that is unfairly weighted on them, especially at a time when UCD Students are facing an 11-13% increase in enrollment fees."

Unfortunately, message such as this flier are not going to help inform UCD Students. This is basically a scare tactic. This leaflet is completely dishonest. It presents students with basic facts about the parcel tax but in a very distorted manner without breaking down what the actual per monthly cost will be.

They then encourage the students to write emails to the Board of Education, the Superintendent, and the Davis Enterprise. Apparently the tactic got a few students to write in.

There are legitimate concerns that students and landlords alike may share in this process. The school board should have the burden to lay out and education the public on this process. However, tactics like this leaflet are not the answer. It is unfortunate that someone has stooped to this level of trying to scare students to oppose the parcel tax.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Yolo County ACLU Requests Change of Venue for Topete Case

Many who read the Davis Enterprise on Sunday, undoubtedly saw the story that the Yolo County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union called "upon the Yolo County Court to quickly secure a change in venue for the trial of Marco Topete, the accused killer of Sheriff's officer and former court baliff Tony Diaz."

Yolo County ACLU President Natlie Wormeli makes the argument based on the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, which reads:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State..."

The Sixth Amendment, many people do not realize, guarantees the right not only to a speedy trial, to have the right to face the accuser, and to the right to an attorney, but also the right to a public trial.

The ACLU is making a different argument than that of the media, who have argued that this is a First Amendment issue, a freedom of press. And whose primary concern naturally was that the press corps were excluded from the arraignment of a high profile case of public interest.

According to Ms. Wormeli:

"This change [of venue] is necessary to assure basic rights to the accused as guaranteed under the United States Constitution."

She continued:

"The Sheriff's Office forgot the basic charge of the Sixth Amendment... Everyone can understand the emotion the bailiffs must feel at the loss of their comrade. This is no excuse, however, for unprofessional and constitutionally prohibited conduct."

Natasha Minsker, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California added:

"The right to a public trial is a fundamental human right, protected by numerous international treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. An open courthouse is the hallmark of a free society." A public trial concurrently protects both the rights of the defendant and the greater right of the people to know.

The Vanguard had Natasha Minsker on its June 25, 2008 Radio Show which discussed this issue as a whole. [You can catch that show by clicking here, the conversation with Natasha Minsker begins around the 35 minute mark]

Natalie Wormeli believes that this violation raises concerns about who controls the legal procedures in Yolo County--the Sheriff or the Judges.

She wonders "whether the judge of the court can conduct a proper and fair trial in such an atmosphere."

"Those who attended last Saturday's funeral for Officer Diaz, including representatives of the YCACLU, were moved by the obvious suffering of Tony Diaz' family and the heartwarming support from his fellow officers in the face of this heinous crime. It is at these times that the criminal justice system, beginning with the trial court, faces its greatest challenge. When justice is pursued with every attention to fair procedure, even under these exceptional circumstances, then all citizens can be assured that the system is credible, reliable, and fair. The sacrifice of Officer Diaz demands that nothing interfere with a speedy and impartial public trial for his accused killer. The ability of the Yolo County Court to provide such proper procedures is in serious question. To remove any taint or threat of a procedural challenge later, the best thing to do is move the trial to another county."

The Vanguard continues to believe that the best course of action in this case is to move the trial to another county to insure that Mr. Topete receives a fair trial and that if he is indeed found guilty of this crime and is indeed the perpetrator of this callous and horrific act upon a peace officer, who attempted to rescue a baby, then Mr. Topete should spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole.

However, above all else, the constitution must be adhered to. The right to a fair and public trial must be afforded to the defendant in this case.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

City Manager Calls for the Hire of Independent Investigator To Review Grand Jury Report on Davis Fire Department

Mayor Asmundson Expresses Concern That Something is "Amiss" In the Fire Department

In a release late yesterday afternoon, Davis City Manager Bill Emlen announced that the city was looking to hire an independent investigator to perform a detailed review of the findings and recommendations of the recently released Grand Jury report.

"The nature and scope of issues raised in this report are significant, and warrant a comprehensive review and response from the City."

City Manager Bill Emlen told the Vanguard that he hopes to make an announcement on the selection of an independent investigator by the end of this week. His first choice seemed to be Police Ombudsman Bob Aaronson but if it is not Bob Aaronson himself, it will be someone like Bob Aaronson. Mr. Aaronson has the advantage of already being on staff and already having familiarity with the city of Davis.

The move follows increasing pressure on the city to thoroughly examine the Grand Jury report released late Monday of last week. Mr. Emlen called the report a "black cloud" hanging over the city. He recognized the need for an independent review that would give the public confidence in whatever finding.

Last week, City Councilmember Lamar Heystek was interviewed on CBS News Channel 13 in Sacramento.

"I think we need to bring in outside help to look into the Grand Jury allegations."

Over the weekend, Mayor Ruth Asmundson expressed her dismay at the turn of events. The Mayor told KCRA TV in Sacramento:

"I was really surprised and concerned that there's something amiss in our fire department."

In the release, Bill Emlen's stated goals for the investigation include:

• Be clear to the public that we are committed to a thorough, objective evaluation of the Grand Jury’s report.
  
  
• Be clear to all sources that we will retain their confidentiality in bringing information forward.
  
  
• Ensure that those affected in the report are treated fairly and in an impartial manner.

In his conversation with the Vanguard, City Manager Bill Emlen was concerned that it would be difficult to retrace some of the steps that the Grand Jury took. In particular, many of the employees who were fearful of retribution had to have extraordinary steps taken in order for them to feel comfortable testifying. I asked him if the city could also make such assurances to protect their identity, and he said that the city could do that and could guarantee protection. However, he was not sure that would be enough to get them to come forward.

As important is the pledge of transparency. The report is not going to be something done in closed session, submitted in private.

"We are committed to a transparent process with the independent investigator’s report ultimately presented to the City Council in open session."

The law requires the city to submit a response within 90 days of the Grand Jury's report. That means by the end of September. However, Mr. Emlen would like that to be done much sooner.

"Our goal is to respond to the Grand Jury’s report much earlier than is required by law."

One way or another, he believes that this is a cloud hanging over the city. He either wants to exonerate the fire department or take appropriate action as soon as possible.

Commentary

An independent investigation is exactly what the Vanguard has wanted to see happen from the start.

Bill Emlen's initial statement and reaction was alarming last Tuesday:

"We believe the Grand Jury Report includes several statements that are factually incorrect. Taken together, they contribute to a less-than-accurate picture of the Davis Fire Department."

However, he has now stepped up to the plate and done what needed to be done. This was an excellent statement by the City Manager. He has done everything here that needs to be done. Mayor Ruth Asmundson is to be commended as well for her forceful advocacy to look into this report and not attempt to sweep the problem under the rug.

The Vanguard is hopeful that Bob Aaronson will be the one who conducts this investigation. In 2006, he had to perform a tough investigation in the city of Santa Cruz, investigating allegations that the city police were spying on anti-war protesters. The initial report by the police was conducted by the very person who ordered such surveillance. Mr. Aaronson called the police on an unprofessional report and then castigated them for their unlawful surveillance against the anti-war protestors.

It is ironic that the man brought in to investigate complaints against the police department would have his first major investigation be to look into the fire department.

Councilmember Stephen Souza has been quiet on this issue. It is somewhat ironic however that both at the time of creating the position of ombudsman and in March of 2007 when Aaronson gave his six month report, Mr. Souza called for the ombudsman to investigate more than just police complaints. While it seems impractical for the ombudsman to handle day to day complaints about things like public works, it is more fitting that this type of investigation fall into the hands of person hired to be an independent eye for the city.

The City Manager acknowledges the severity of these charges and recognizes that neither he nor his employees are the ones that should be investigating this report.

Whoever ends up with the investigation has a difficult and unenviable task. As the City Manager acknowledges, the road map laid out by the Grand Jury is a difficult one to replicate. It took the Grand Jury over a year to conduct this investigation. The issues of retribution and confidentiality are difficult ones to grapple with both on the side of individual accused employees as well as whistle blowers.

However, the city has now recognized that they cannot unring this bell. They must press forward and find out if these accusation have merit.

Frankly this is all we ever wanted from the start--a process by which we can determine if the Grand Jury's report has merit and a process by which the city can deal appropriately with individuals if needed.

Hiring an independent investigator helps the city both meet the needs of the public and protects the rights of the employees.

Once again Mayor Ruth Asmundson and City Manager Bill Emlen deserve tremendous credit for doing the right thing in this situation. They have the full confidence of the Vanguard as they move forward.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Word To The Wise: Speak Up Or Nothing Changes

By E.A. Roberts
____________

Recently I had the opportunity to attend the Open House given at Atria Covell Gardens, an assisted living facility for seniors. Its purpose was to showcase the new double occupancy suites, which were created as a result of resident complaints. Rent increases for this residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) jumped to as much as 16% over a two year period, a drastic spike in price. What ensued is a prime example of democracy in action.

Oddly enough, the Davis Senior Citizens Commission just so happened to have one of their regular off-site meetings at Atria Covell Gardens last winter. Without knowing what was coming, commissioners convening the session were greeted with a firestorm of protest. Atria Covell Garden residents had just received word of an extreme rate hike in rent and services the evening before. This feisty group of seniors were infuriated, and let the commission know just how they felt.

Our advice as a commission was for them to complain long and loudly, with Letters to the Editor of the Davis Enterprise, or to the Davis Vanguard, as a way of obtaining publicity for their cause. We also suggested contacting state and local legislators. There were also talks with the company that managed the facility as well. All avenues were sought for redress, including the state licensing board. Just about anyone who was in any way connected with the situation was contacted by these angry seniors.

The result was not only several different bills now wending their way through the legislature having to do with notification of rent increases at RCFEs. In addition, Atria Covell Gardens has made changes to several single suites to accommodate two persons in a shared arrangement - to cut costs for those of lesser income. More of these units are planned there for the future. Had the seniors in residence at Atria Covell kept quiet about their predicament, then nothing much would have changed.

Instead a private company has been encouraged to make necessary alterations to keep competitive with the current market. The fact of the matter is that Atria Covell Gardens represents the only sole RCFE in the city of Davis. University Retirement Commons is the only Continuum of Care Facility (Independent Living Facility; Assisted Living Facility; Skilled Nursing Facility; Alzheimer’s Unit all in one) within town limits. In consequence, these two facilities have virtually no competition, and have been able to charge prices at a rate that is as high as whatever the market will bear.

However, because of the complaints about the sudden, drastic rent hikes at Atria Covell Gardens, there has been the introduction of new legislation which may warn of perceived price gouging. There has also been talk of building another lower cost assisted living facility, for middle income older folks. Both of these factors surely played into management’s decision to devise a way to create more affordable units at Atria Covell Gardens. High praise goes to the seniors that spoke out against their financial predicament; and to private enterprise for coming up with a creative solution! It may not be the perfect solution, but it is a start in the right direction.

Legislation Pending:

• AB 2101 Author: Wolk [D]; Title: RCFEs; rate increases

Requires RCFEs to develop emergency plans, give residents advanced notice of rent increases, and give prospective residents information about rate increases over the past 5 yrs.

• 
  

• AB 2370 Author: Bass [D]; Title: RCFEs; rate increases

Requires RCFEs to disclose annually to current residents their average monthly rate increases for each of the previous 3 years, to be posted near the entrance to the facility and provided to any prospective tenant upon request.

CA Commission on Aging Public Hearing: Health Access for Older Californians

The California Commission on Aging (CCoA) held a public hearing in Yolo County, on the topic of health access for older Americans in rural areas. CCoA is an advisory body to the governor of CA on senior issues. Its 25 members are appointed by the governor, Senate Rules Committee and Speaker of the Assembly. They serve as volunteers, for up to two three year terms.

Our own Dave Soto, of the Area 4 Agency on Aging, pointed out that his organization encourages:

1. A multi-disciplinary approach;
2. Disease and injury prevention;
3. Home-centered services;
4. Transportation options;
5. Technological innovation.

Dawn Purkey of Yolo Adult Day Health stressed the following:

• Age distinctions should be made when providing services, because the needs for each age group can be so different, e.g. 65-75, 75-85, 85 and above;
• Service providers need to be protected with programs like respite care;
• Caregiver assessment tools should be developed;
• Nontraditional models of caregiving should be tried;
• Volunteerism should be encouraged.

Nancy Guenther, the Program Manager of the Office on Disability and Health, CA Dept. of Public Health, Injury Control Section advised as listed below:

• Transportation networks; more transportation options;
• Mobile units to dispense healthcare;
• Use of new technology, e.g. videophones; internet interactions
• Care calls to check on isolated seniors;
• Health promotion visits;
• Universal fund, paid by doctors, for language interpreters

Teri Boughton, Senior Program Officer for State Health Policy, CA HealthCare Foundation advised:

• Allowing greater independence of nurse practitioners;
• Align licensing requirements with the military, to encourage retired military medical personnel to practice in rural areas;
• Raise reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid, to encourage doctors to take more low income patients;
• Encourage development of telemedicine by remote technological devices

Then questions were invited from commission members and the audience. Suggested solutions for improving access to healthcare in rural areas included:

• Retail medical clinics, as long as there was integration with more comprehensive care;
• Great ideas are funded through local, state and federal grants; volunteerism; and operating on a shoestring budget;
• Recruitment of physicians (especially geriatric physicians) with: debt forgiveness as an incentive; and develop hospital districts;
• Mobilization of resources to come together to meet senior needs, e.g. use of Fish & Game airplanes to medivac rural patients to urban trauma centers, recruit both Vets with medical experience and retired physicians; physicians should tithe 10% to public clinics; medical networks need to work outside the Medicare/Medicaid system, e.g. by municipalities paying doctors to come back on occasion and provide services;
• National Health Services Corp - education is paid for if recipient doctor works in rural area for a period of years;
• Provide more transportation options;
• Push for universal health coverage;
• Provide more public education on available services;
• Have sliding scale with respect to fees charged for accessing services.

In proposing transit mobility training as a possible solution to get seniors to their medical appointments, I was lucky enough to be informed by a commission member that he was aware of Yolo County’s grant application to Caltrans for this teaching project. Transit mobility training instructs seniors how to use public transit, so they are not in fear of getting lost or stranded. It will assist them in using public transit to get to a doctor‘s office or medical clinic, by starting them off with group training for a social event. An out-of-service bus is utilized to take a cadre of willing senior citizens by the hand to the local downtown area for lunch, or the movies.

This program is being developed by the Triad Task Force of which I am Chair. Triad is the action arm of the Yolo County Commission on Aging, chaired by Mariko Yamada. The transit mobility training project is being facilitated in conjunction with a private company. Paratransit Inc. already provides this type of training in Sacramento County, so Davis Senior Citizens Commissioner Tansey Thomas and I asked them if they would be willing to expand their services into Yolo County. JD Culver and Kevin Walch of Paratransit Inc. were delighted to oblige! A pilot project would begin in Davis, and expand to encompass as much of Yolo County as possible.

I also mentioned to the CCoA some other projects in Yolo County that Triad has either completed or is in the works:

• Rebuilding Together - a nonprofit organization that provides safety devices in the home, such as grab bars, wheelchair ramps, smoke detectors, custom railings, toilet risers, etc., regardless of income status.
• Caregiver Registry - to provide trained caregivers to those seniors not wealthy enough to afford private pay services, but too wealthy to qualify for gov’t subsidized in-home supportive services.
• Proposition 63 funded mobile assessment team known as the Yolo County Older Adult Program - to assist seniors in crisis.
• Triad Task Force, a community-based organization willing to take on projects that assist seniors.
• Building Bridges - an elder abuse prevention program, which is key to the protection of older adult health. Once a senior has been abused, either physically or financially, it begins a downward spiral that often results in the death of an elderly person.

Finally, I noted the need for elder abuse prevention, as key to the protection of older adult health. It was pointed out by me that once a senior has been abused, either physically or financially, it begins a downward spiral that often results in death.

Lesson to be learned: Speak out, or nothing will change for the better. Volunteerism, creativity, and a willingness to address problems are the solutions to a better life for senior citizens.

Elaine Roberts Musser is an attorney who concentrates her efforts on elder law and aging issues, especially in regard to consumer affairs. If you have a comment or particular question or topic you would like to see addressed in this column, please make your observations at the end of this article in the comment section.

UC Service Workers To Strike

Last week, 8,500 UC workers announced that they will hold a five-day strike at UC's ten campuses and five medical centers.

According to a release from AFSCME, the union that represents university workers, the strike is for the service workers, however, thousands of medical workers could individually honor the picket lines and not cross it.

"At issue are poverty wages as low as $10 per hour. Many work 2-3 jobs and qualify for public assistance to meet their families’ basic needs. UC wages have fallen dramatically behind other hospitals and California’s community colleges where workers are paid family-sustaining wages that are on average of 25% higher. In addition, when workers have stood up for better lives for their families and better working conditions, the University has retaliated by violating labor laws.

96% of service workers are eligible for at least one of the following forms of public assistance: food stamps, WIC, public housing subsidies and subsidized child care, creating a potential burden for CA taxpayers. Increasing wages would not only help lift workers out of poverty, but could positively impact CA and the low- and moderate-income areas where UC workers live as they contribute more to their local economy."

11,500 patient care workers have also been in negotiations since August of 2007. At this point, they are not calling for a strike although some may decide not to cross the picket line in solidarity.

Last week the Davis Enterprise quoted Nicole Savickas, a UC human resources communications coordinator:

"The university is disappointed that the union has decided to call for a strike of UC service workers at this time... While UC and AFSCME spent the last few weeks of June bargaining for patient care technical employees, the university has not received a response to its last request (from mid-June) to continue discussions for service employees... We hope that the union will reconsider and join us back at the bargaining table to continue negotiations for new contracts for both our service and patient care technical employees."

However, Leticia Garcia-Prado who works as a medical assistant at Cowell Student Health Center told the Enterprise that the university's latest proposal included no substantive changes from the previous offer.

Workers are particularly upset that the well-paid upper management of the university has been receiving pay increases even as the service workers are locked into low wages. Some may question the timing of these strikes and requests for pay increases during times of budget crisis and economic downturn.

It is important to note that 78 percent of the funding that pays for service worker position does not come from the state's general fund. Instead a large portion of the funding comes directly from revenues generated from UC Hospitals. In 2006, UC Hospitals posted $371 million in profits.

Moreover, California State-appointed neutral Factfinder Carol Vendrillo, who independently evaluated the viability of a service workers’ labor agreement, found that the university system has the ability to increase pay to these workers.

“U.C. has demonstrated the ability to increase compensation when it fits with certain priorities without any demonstrable link to a state funding source…It is time for UC to take a broader view of its priorities by honoring the important contribution that service workers make to the U.C. community and compensating them with wages that are in line with the competitive market rate.”

Meanwhile Union officials have said they will not strike before July 12, 2008.

Commentary

It is disappointing that it has come to this. The University of California system is the finest public higher education system in the country. They offer many students a world class education for a very affordable price. Unfortunately, they are paying their lowest level employees wages that require many to receive public assistance.

Leticia Garcia-Prado takes home less than $2000 per month in her position as a patient care worker. She is earning this in a community where the median income is more than twice that.

The university is using the state budget as a means to hold up this process. But most of the money for these wages do not come from the state budget. It is time that we move forward as a community and no longer accept the UC system paying its wage earners meager wages.

It took the Sodexho workers a number of years, but they finally this spring forced UC Davis to transition them to university employees. This was a good step forward, but now we need to take it to the next level and pay all university employees a good and fair wage for the excellent service they provide to the university and the community.

SPECIAL NOTE: This is the Vanguard's 1000th post. The Vanguard was first published on July 30, 2006 and since September of 2006 has been publishing at least once daily except during the Thanksgiving Holiday. The Vanguard wishes to thank all of the readers who have been around since the beginning and welcome those who are just joining us.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Cal-OSHA Again Shuts Down Farm Labor Contractor Responsible for 17-Year-Old Worker's Death

A few weeks ago, the Vanguard reported on the sad story of a 17-year-old farm worker who died of heat stroke after working for hours in the heat without adequate water, rest, or shade. (Click here to listen to our interview with Marilyn Calderon of the United Farm Workers).

On Friday, the Sacramento Bee reported on an update to the situation. The Merced Farm Labor had been allowed to reopen and send its laborers back to the fields as of June 26 after demonstrating to CAL-OSHA that it met all the requirements for heat protection for its workers. The company had been shut down because it was not requiring its employees to receive heat training.

However, on Thursday, July 3, state inspectors found once again that the company was failing to comply with regulations.

The Stockton Record is reporting that the state is in the process of revoking the contractor license of owner Maria De Colunga who is under investigation for the death of Maria Isabel who died from heat exhaustion in May.

The Record goes on to quote Paul Feist a spokesman for the California Labor and Development Agency, which oversees Cal/OSHA.

Feist said the department is working to revoke De Colugna's contractor license by September, the month her license comes up for renewal.

"Revocation would most likely prevent them from renewing again," Feist said.

"We're not going to let this contractor operate until we're fully convinced they're in compliance," Feist said.

These regulations are not exactly rocket science. They are required to provide water, periodic breaks, and shade. The company had been shut down and warned and they still cannot comply with heat regulations?

Here are the regulations as reported in the Stockton Record.

Companies with outdoor employees are required by state law to provide:

• Training: Train all employees and supervisors about heat illness prevention.

• Water: Provide enough fresh water so that each employee can drink at least one quart per hour, and encourage them to do so.

• Shade: Provide access to shade for at least five minutes of rest when an employee believes he or she needs a preventative recovery period. Employees should not wait until they feel sick to do so.

• Planning: Develop and implement written procedures for complying with the Cal/OSHA Heat Illness Prevention Standard.

Source: Department of Industrial Relations

None of these seem overbearing and most of it is commonsense.

We also now know that Maria Isabel was part of the production team for Bronco Winery which produces the "Two-Buck Chuck"--a best selling wine that is available exclusively at Trader Joe's stores.

The United Farm Workers are working to put pressure on Trader Joe's to change their corporate policies in order to protect farm workers.

Because Maria worked for a labor contractor, she most likely never knew she was part of the production team for Bronco Winery who is better known for Charles Shaw wines--commonly called "Two-Buck Chuck." This best selling wine is available exclusively at Trader Joe's stores. According to Trader Joe's web site, "these super-value wines began as the result of an oversupply of wine and a great relationship with a valued supplier."

Help us ask Trader Joe's to use their "great relationship" to protect the workers who labor to pick the crop. Ask Trader Joe's to implement a corporate policy to ensure that their suppliers are not violating the law by failing to provide farm workers with basic protections such as cold water, shade and clean bathrooms.

Requests of this type are not new to Trader Joe's. Back in 2005 after the Humane Society and customers expressed concerns, Trader Joe's agreed to sell only cage free eggs under the company's label. We commend Trader Joe's for this corporate responsibility and ask them to do the same for farm workers. After all isn't the life of a farm worker as important as the life of a chicken?

Trader Joe's web site says "we listen to what our customers tell us about the choices we give them." Please ask Trader Joe's to listen and take action today. As the exclusive distributor of Charles Shaw wines, they need to take corporate responsibility before more farm workers, like Maria die due to grower neglect.

This morning's Stockton record has an article on Trader Joe's and the UFW.

According to the article here is the connection between the farm and Trader Joe's.

The connection: West Coast Grape Farming is owned by the Franzia family, which also owns Bronco Wine Co., which produces Charles Shaw wines. The selection of wines, sometimes known as Two Buck Chuck, are exclusively sold at Trader Joe's, which caters to health-conscious consumers. Trader Joe's has a store in Lincoln Center in Stockton.

However, Trader Joe's has issued a statement saying that those grapes are not used for Two Buck Chuck.

Alison Mochizuki, a Trader Joe's spokeswoman, said in a written statement that the vineyard where Jimenez pruned does not supply grapes for Charles Shaw wines.

"The company employing the young farm worker has no more of a relation to Trader Joe's than they do to any other wine retailer or restaurant," Mochizuki said.

Further, the spokeperson claims that the company already implements strict policies for its vendors.

"Our vendors have a strong record of providing safe and healthy work environments and we will continue to make certain that our vendors are meeting, if not exceeding, government standards," Mochizuki said.

However Roman Pinal is not buying the explanation. He called the reply a "disheartening attempt to try to distance themselves."

To me this is a very basic request for human dignity. It is appalling that people have attempted in some quarters to justify this tragedy under the guise of the debate on immigration. Regardless of the implications of that debate, there will be farm laborers and they deserve basic workplace protections. What hiker even on a cool day would not bring a bottle of water? Now imagine working all day in the hot sun, with limited breaks, and even more limited water?

Remember that hot weekend in May when it was well over 100 degrees? Maria Isabel was out in the fields working for hours. They made water available to the workers finally after several hours but it was a 10 minute walk and they were only given a 10 minute break. After she collapsed, they put her in a hot van and waited for the other laborers before driving around looking for alcohol. They refused to take her to the hospital because they did not want to admit that she was underage.

As far as I am concerned, they should be in jail for manslaughter. And they should be civilly liable as well.

My patience with Trader Joe's has already warn thin due to local issues involving a proposed Trader Joe's that the company want to open at University Mall in a spot already occupied. They need to step up here and it is apparent that they may not. Until they do, I will not be one of their customers.

The worst part of this tragedy is that basic commonsense at any point along the way would have prevented the death of Maria Isabel. Now it is time for us to examine working conditions in this county and hope that we are doing the right thing.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Sideshow Continues in Murder Trial; Chief Justice Called in To Help

California's Chief Justice Ronald George has been asked to intervene in the Yolo Superior Court's handling of the case against a man who has been accused of killing a Yolo County Sheriff's Deputy. Justice George will appoint an outside judge who will then rule on the motion to disqualify every Yolo County Judge from hearing the case.

Three Judges have already disqualified themselves two because they had worked with the Sheriff's Deputy in past employment and the third because as Judge, they had ruled on a family law issue involving the defendant.

The other seven refused to disqualify themselves and Judge Rosenberg ruled that he had no power to remove those judges and he refused to disqualify himself.

He is quoted in the Sacramento Bee saying:

"It would be easy to disqualify myself with the stroke of a pen... There being no good reasons to disqualify, I decline to disqualify myself from hearing this case."

Judge Rosenberg then apparently read aloud his entire nine page ruling into court where he criticized bailiffs and sheriff's deputies for their decision to prevent access to the June 18 arraignment.

The Sacramento Bee continues:

The judge said he had not known the outer doors of the court building were locked until after the hearing was over.

Deputies had made a "unilateral decision to prevent access" to the public and the suspect's family, while allowing fellow officers and the victim's family to enter through side doors, he said.

He said a judge would have to be "downright stupid" to "sanction, condone, or collude with other judges to actually bar the press and the public from an arraignment courtroom."

A former Yolo County supervisor and state political figure, Rosenberg said he had been accused of many things during his public career. But, "I don't think I've ever been accused of being stupid," he said.

Sacramento News 10 quotes Judge Rosenberg:

"The public and the press should never be barred from a criminal hearing or trial because of a locked door," said Rosenberg.

Responding to defense allegations that Rosenberg and other judges delayed their June 18 caseloads to allow their bailiff to attend Topete's arraignment, Rosenberg said, "... there is not a scintilla of evidence presented that I knew other departments were doing so, nor that I and any other judge 'colluded' to close our departments..."

Dean Johansson the public defender then apparently objected to the entire filing being read into the record.

"That was a political speech."

To which the Judge responded:

"One could say it's a political (defense) motion. The motion has attacked the integrity of the entire bench."

Commentary

Basically what has happened to this point is that three Judges have disqualified themselves who have direct past dealings with either victim or the defendant. The grounds for getting the other seven disqualified seem rather steep at this point, although having Justice George intervene to name a judge to rule on the remainder of the motion is rather unusual.

I remain at a loss here as to the defense strategy. I do not understand why they want to remove the judges but keep the case in Yolo County where they would still have to deal with the sheriff's department.

That said, I think bringing in outside help is a good idea at this point. At the very least, fresh and hopefully unbiased eyes can take a look at the motion and make the key determination--can this guy get a fair trial. Personally I do not think he can get a fair trial at this point in Yolo County.

One can probably find a jury that has not heard about this case--although I always have to wonder about such juries that do not follow the news at all. But I have to question whether the Sheriff's Department can do their job in a professional way after what we have seen to date.

One can probably criticize Judge Rosenberg for reading his nine page ruling. But I also commend him for asking for outside help here.

At this point it appears that the charges have not been read to the accused. This is an integral part of the criminal justice system where the accused has the right to get the charges read against him in a public hearing that ensures that the state is not merely charging him in an ad hoc or secretive fashion. It is what separates our legal system from those in tyrannical countries.

This episode has become a tremendous sideshow. And it does a disservice to the memory of the fallen Sheriff's deputy and his family. As such, we would like to see a quick resolution of these side issues so that the main trial can move forward and the defendant can hear the charges read against him.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Councilmember Heystek Joins Call for Independent Investigator

Last night, the Sacramento news stations picked up the story on the Grand Jury's report about the Davis Fire Department. While their story focused largely on the incidence of drinking by firefighters and then sleeping it off at the fire station. There was also important new information provided including statements by Councilmember Lamar Heystek and City Manager Bill Emlen.

Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek called for an independent investigation into these allegations.

"I think we need to bring in outside help to look into the Grand Jury allegations."

CBS News 13's broadcast focused mostly on the incidence of drinking, however, they also interviewed the City Manager by phone. At one point they asked Bill Emlen what Fire Chief Rose Conroy's reaction to the Grand Jury report was.

"Her reaction is that she feels that there are a lot of things in the report that don't paint an accurate picture of how the department is run."

Bill Emlen went on to say that some of what is alleged in the report could be inaccurate.

But what is interesting about his statement is that it would appear that his initial denial to the press on Tuesday was based on what Chief Rose Conroy said.

Bill Emlen's statement released on Tuesday said:

"We believe the Grand Jury Report includes several statements that are factually incorrect. Taken together, they contribute to a less-than-accurate picture of the Davis Fire Department."

However, notably as important, was toward the end of the CBS News 13 broadcast, the reporter said that Bill Emlen said that an independent investigation will be underway immediately.

The question now is what form such an independent investigation might take. In order to really have the confidence of the public at this point, that investigation needs to be conducted by someone outside of the city's chain of command. Basically it needs to be performed by someone like Bob Aaronson, who is the police ombudsman, or Bob Aaronson itself.

At this point, it appears that there is now momentum in that direction.

While there is general disappointment that the news coverage focused on the incidence of drinking rather than what appears to be more serious charges of undue union influence and hostile work environment, the public response to this appears to be putting pressure on the city to do something. It is becoming a point of embarrassment. The City Manager's public response remains troubling, but behind the scenes there may be more acknowledgment that action must be taken.

We will have to wait and see until Monday to find out exactly what the plan is from the city's perspective.

From my perspective I don't understand the reluctance to independently investigate this issue. If the Chief is exonerated by such an investigation, the public will have much more confidence in such a report if it doesn't come from the city itself. A witch hunt is not what we need, just someone who is not predisposed to back the city at all costs.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Vanguard Radio Show Tonight

Tune into tonight on KDRT 101.5 FM for the Davis Vanguard Radio Show

Tonight's guests will be Rachel Anderson from SANE (Safer Alternatives Through Networking and Education)--they are one of the groups that run the needle exchange programs in the area, including the one in this county. We'll be talking about the needle exchange program. She will be on from 6:10 pm to 6:30 pm.

Then at 6:35 pm will be Yolo County Supervisor Matt Rexroad, an opponent of the needle exchange program and we'll likely delve into other topics as well.

As with last week, because both will be call in guest, any questions should be sent via text message: 530.400-2512

UPDATE: Listen to the Podcast by clicking here

Commentary: City's Response to Grand Jury Report Disappointing

Vanguard Calls For Independent Investigation of Grand Jury Report on the Davis Fire Department

While the report released on Monday from the Yolo County Grand Jury regarding the Davis Fire Department was disturbing, many wanted to wait to see what the response from the city would be.

Unfortunately, the statement released by Davis City Manager Bill Emlen undermines any value that response might have.

The City Manager's statement basically said that they respect the work of the grand jury, will take its findings serious, however:

"We believe the grand jury report includes several statements that are factually incorrect. Taken together, they contribute to a less than accurate picture of the Davis Fire Department."

Frankly that is the kind of statement that we would expect from the Fire Chief or the Police Captain, people actually accused of wrongdoing. That is not the kind of statement that we would expect from the City Manager.

Some people are taking this as evidence that there is no wrongdoing, but really how would the City Manager know if the crux of the report is correct or factually incorrect at this point? Has he interviewed the people that the Grand Jury has interviewed? Seems doubtful, especially after the Grand Jury explained how many precautions they took.

Simply put the City Manager has not had time to do his own investigation, so his response seems premature at best. What the City Manager should have said was the cursory, We respect of the work of the grand jury, we will take the findings seriously. We are looking into the allegations made in their report and will respond accordingly.

Unfortunately, that is not what happened so far. The City Manager is in full denial mode once again. This is reminiscent of the handling of the Buzayan Case by the City. Instead of investigating the complaints, they are in full damage protection mode, trying to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The City's response to the Buzayan Case has actually put the city in jeopardy of a multimillion dollar judgment with the case pending in federal court.

Based on the statement by the city manager, we have no confidence anymore in anything the city has to say on this matter. The response is simply not credible and the credibility of any future response is now in severe question.

What I find particularly disturbing is that buried at the end of the story, the City Manager acknowledges that he does not have all of the information at hand.

"Many of the allegations in the report do not include sufficient detail or background information for the city to investigate fully."

This is a particularly curious statement in light of the fact that the Grand Jury managed to do their own investigation over the course of two years to uncover these findings. If the city is serious about getting to the bottom of this, they would have access to the exact same people as the grand jury. Then again, the city would have to have the level of trust that the grand jury gained by taking precautions to insure that those coming forward would be protected. Given the fear of retribution, it is difficult to believe that the city would be able to get to the bottom of it without an independent investigator to handle the matter in a thorough and professional manner.

For the sake of all involved there needs to be an independent investigation of these allegations.

Some will suggest we have already had that--i.e. the grand jury report. But the grand jury report is not actionable as such. The city now needs to conduct its own investigation to determine whether or not wrongdoing occurred and if it did occur what the consequences should be.

And if the investigation vindicated the fire chief and captain, then they should be vindicated by a process that people will regard as fair and transparent. This is not such a process.

We have concerns that one of the accused, Davis Fire Captain Bobby Weist who is the president of the Union was not interviewed by the grand jury. Most of these situations come down to different points of view, and if his view was not included in the report, that tends to caste some doubt.

The story run in the Davis Enterprise interviews the principles who were accused, particularly Captain Bobby Weist, in addition to the City Manager Bill Emlen and Police Chief Landy Black. What the Enterprise does not do is interview anyone who agrees with the grand jury report. On the other hand, Rose Conroy, the fire chief, was advised against commenting before the response was issued.

Moreover, they quote Police Chief Landy Black who tells us there is no problem between the two agencies:

"Davis Police Chief Landy Black said the relationship between the two safety agencies is strong.

'The police officers and the firefighters in the city of Davis consider themselves allies, if you will, in public safety here for Davis,' he said."

What they do not do is quote the head of the Davis Police Officer's Association. One might suspect there would be a somewhat different answer once you get below the level of Police Chief.

The bottom line here is that at this point, there is no confidence that the city can handle this matter internally in a fair and judicious manner. Furthermore, if the Grand Jury did not interview Bobby Weist we believe that they should have. However, we are not going to believe the city manager's office stating this.

We need an independent investigator. The police ombudsman, Robert Aaronson would be a good place to start--someone who can be independent and fair to all involved.

We ask the city council to demand an independent investigation and allow the process to go forward from there.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: This is a Lesson of Accountability

Throughout the City Council election the lesson was one of "the cost to live in Davis" for the taxpayers. Throughout California public safety salaries and pensions are putting increasing strains on city budgets. However, the chief lesson that we can take away from the grand jury report is not primarily a fiscal lesson. That lesson we already have learned and understand that lesson to some extent.

The lesson to be learned from the Yolo County Grand Jury report is what happens when there is no accountability. What happens when there are no checks and balances in place. I have always been a strong union supporter. The reason for this is that unions advocate for their employees. The reason we have things like 40 hour work weeks, vacation time, medical leave, health insurance and other benefits, minimum wage, and many other protections in place for workers is because these things were fought for--sometimes with real blood and real lives. Management would send in police and mercenaries to physically attempt to break strikes and break the back of labor. Even today, I watch what government employers attempt to do to government employees, and without strong union representation, many of these employees would have little recourse.

At the same time, there is a separation between the employees and the employers. The idea of collective bargaining is that two sides with disparate interests sit down at the bargaining table and hammer out an agreement mutually beneficial to both sides. In the case of government unions, management represents in part the taxpayers interests.

What we see in Davis is the problem when the management side breaks down. That wall of separation does not exist. The Grand Jury report underscores this in two ways. First, they site the relationship between the Fire Chief, i.e. management, and the union. Second, you have a political body that is again, supposed to provide some kind of overseer role here, but that has been torn away by the strong political organization developed by the union, which has spent a tremendous amount of money to elect people friendly to their interests. In fact, they are the only union in the city that goes to such lengths and as a result, the City Council effectively has provided no oversight or accountability to the fire fighters over a period of years.

With little in the way of oversight or accountability, the outcome is fairly predictable.

We are not surprised to see inconsistent promotion practices nor are we surprised that people who are in leadership positions in the union receive preferential promotions over people not in the unions. No one is providing leadership here and no one is stepping up to stop it.

The Grand Jury report then cites a hostile work environment. We see complaints normally by unions of hostile work environments often with union members receiving discriminatory treatment by management. We see this by supervisors in all walks of life. But in this case, the situation is reversed. People not in the union, people who are critical of the union, those who speak out against the union, are in fact singled out here. And the report goes on to tell of numerous stories. Not just if they speak out against the union, but also if they speak out against the Fire Chief.

Because of this arrangement, we see the appearance of undue union influence in city elections. Nearly every firefighter donated to the city council campaigns. The DFP were the only city employees to donate to city council campaigns. The report suggests in part this was due to pressure from the union on their employees.

All of these very serious problems can be traced back to a lack of oversight. Neither the Fire Chief nor the Council Majority has stepped forward to take a leadership role here and therefore the power of this particular union has been largely unchecked in Davis for many years. There are no consequences to their actions. And from what I understand, the Grand Jury report itself is simply the tip of the ice berg.

The history of such Grand Jury reports suggests that not much will change as the result of this report. It will be interesting to see the response of the Fire Chief, City Manager, and City Councils. It is unclear whether those will be considered public responses or if this is considered a personnel matter protected by confidentiality laws.

What is clear is that the general public is probably not going to even be aware of this. While the Woodland Daily Democrat had a full story on the Grand Jury report as it pertained to Woodland, particularly the Woodland Schools, and posted the report on their website, the Davis Enterprise did not mention it at all. Without local newspaper coverage of this report, the city is free to go about with business as usual, and this pattern will continue.

The single biggest problem I have seen in my nearly two years of covering issues in Davis and Yolo County is that there is little accountability for most actions. Those in power simply continue to try not to rock the boat. And the result is that these things continue to happen until and unless there is enough public uproar to force a change. And it is not limited to the city. How long did people like Tahir Ahad continue to get away with abuse of public trust? Far too long. It cost DJUSD a lot of money. And, very rarely are there ever consequences to be paid. Unfortunately, that was not an isolated incident.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Grand Jury Report Cites Major Improprieties by Davis Fire Department

The 2007-2008 Yolo County Grand Jury has released its final report. One of its investigations looks into multiple allegations against the Davis Fire Department.

The Grand Jury investigated five key complaints.

First, "inconsistent promotion practices."

Second, "a hostile work environment caused by a close relationship between DFD management and the Union and its Board of Directors and unequal support of educational endeavors."

Third, "drug and alcohol use and the misuse of DFD sleeping facilities by off-duty firefighters."

Fourth, "the strained relationship between DFD and the Davis Police Department (DPD)"

And fifth, "the appearance of improper political activity."

The Grand Jury found the following after an extensive two year investigation:

"misuse of a DFD facility; inappropriate relationships between the Union's Board of Directors and DFD management; and inconsistencies in promotional opportunities."

As a result of the investigation, the Grand Jury recommends the following:

(a) the next Fire Chief be someone from outside DFD with no ties to the Union; (b) revise the current promotion testing process to include weighting of scores for each test section and posting of this information in public areas of the firehouses and in promotion announcements; (c) require all personnel read and sign-off on policies relating to discipline and alcohol and drug use and (d) enforcement of all alcohol and drug use policies."

In what follows are the key findings under the five complaints.

Promotion Practices

One of the biggest findings are unclear promotional policies that DFD firefighters generally perceive that being active in Union leadership leads to "promotion, better jobs, and better project or training assignments."

Most significantly, "Weights are assigned to various promotion test segments. The Grand Jury discovered these weights are ignored by the fire Chief when making the final selection."

One key example they cite is the recent promotion of the Union President [Bobbie Weist] to the rank of Captain. "The Union President ranked ninth out of ten on the promotion list." They also note that the Union has had the same president since its founding 22 years ago.

These preferential practices seemed to have a strong impact on morale. Those firefighters who scored well on promotion testing but were never advanced, eventually stopped testing for promotion.

Hostile Work Environment

The report notes that the Fire Chief Rose Conroy [they have omitted names in this report, but obviously we know who some of these people are] plans to retire in the next one to two years. There have been three lawsuits concerning harassment and a hostile work environment under her watch. One was dropped "due to procedural deficiency." The other two were settled out of court for upwards of a combined $600,000.

"A number of DFD firefighters are fearful of retaliation if they speak out against the Fire Chief or the Union. DFD firelighters, both past and present, indicated that those who questioned or challenged the Union in any way would bc openly shunned by union members. Retaliation could occur even for inquiring about access to Union bylaws and financial reports."

The reports also cites the close relationship between the Fire Chief and the Union and argues that the various relationships and strands "present an appearance of cronyism and undue Union influence in the administration of the DFD." They also cite cases of favoritism toward those in the Union and discrimination against those who did not join the union. There are at least five examples on page 22 of the report that present evidence towards this conclusion.

Misuse of DFP Facility

The report cites DFD for publicly drinking and then using the public facility as a location to sleep off their intoxication.

"It was discovered that some DFD firefighters come to the Station 31 firehouse (located downtown) to sleep while off-duty. It appears that the off-duty DFD firefighters, after drinking in downtown Davis, sometimes" sleep it off' at the firehouse rather than drive home, a practice actively supported by the Fire Chief. While it may be preferable for them to be sleeping in the firehouse rather than driving on the road, the city prohibits "being under the influence during work hours, at the work site, or in uniform." (Section 3.4B of the City of Davis Administrative Policy and Section 7.4 J of the City of Davis Personnel Rules and Regulations). Off-duty DFD firefighters seen intoxicated downtown and known to be sleeping at the firehouse afterward reflect poorly on the DFD and the City."

Relationship between the DPD and the DFD

The reports cites "numerous" alterations involving DFD firefighters which require police response. The report suggests that the police are hesitant to deal with incidents involving off-duty DFD firefighters due to police officers relying on the fire department for assistance in emergency situation. They cite as a concern "the expectation by the DFD of special treatment by the DPD."

They also cite the lack of cooperation between the departments relating to setting up "the new joint 911 Call Center."

The Appearance of Undue Union Influence

This strongly relates to the articles written by Davis Enterprise Columnist Rich Rifkin. The Grand Jury report fights that according to city records nearly all active firefighters (40 persons) contributed the maximum $100 donation to several City Council candidates prior to 2004's City Council Election.

"Soon after that electron, DFD's new 2005 Union contract was negotiated and approved by the City. DFD firefighters wearing elements of their on-duty DFD firefighter uniform, includimg the DFD logo, distributed political materials and walked Davis voting precincts in support of individual City Council candidates."

The report emphasizes that while political activity by the Union members itself is not improper, nevertheless:

"it appears that at least some of this local political activism stems from undue influence upon DFD firefighters by DFD management resulting in pressured political contributions to local candidates on the part of some DFD firefighters. No other city employees filed under the City ordinance requiring disclosure of City Council campaign contributions.

A similar unusual pattern of DFD firefighter political contributions to local candidates has occurred with respect to the 2008 City Council election. City Council campaign contribution filings do not reveal any other City of Davis employees contributed to any political candidate running for local office. The Union contract with DFD is again soon due for renegotiation."

Please see page 23 of the report for the summary of findings and recommendations. It will be interesting to see what comes of this report. The Grand Jury has requested a response from the Fire Chief, City Manager, and City Council. The Vanguard will be closely watching this story as it develops.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: November is Not the Right Time for Parcel Tax

Last Monday at the school board meeting it was a unique experience to read the results of the district's focus group study. The surprising results of the focus group study is that the Davis School Board could have saved themselves a lot of time and money by simply reading the comment section of the People's Vanguard of Davis for the last six months every time the prospect of the parcel tax came up.

That is not an attempt to be arrogant or cocky, but simply to suggest that the findings of the focus group study closely mirror the comments made in the comment section of the Vanguard. Based on these findings, I am skeptical that a parcel tax can pass in November.

The major findings of the focus group study suggests that there is a deep distrust of local government among focus group participants. Notably they do not distinguish between the performance of the City Council and that of the school district (something that we noted in fact on the campaign trail as well). They believe that the District has the incentive to continually increase the budget year to year and that any funding from a parcel tax will become part of the larger pot of funding expectations and expenditures that cannot be tracked. Accountability is a huge concern for the focus group.

These participants were aware of the state budget crisis and the local impact on schools, but were very reluctant to increase taxes locally. They want assurances that money raised in Davis stays local and is not taken by the state. They are also concerned that money raised locally would simply result in the district getting lower amounts of funding from state (they do not understand in other words how funding for schools works and that is an important component of any campaign to educate the public). What I found interesting, is that Jay Ziegler mentioned that they were more likely to pass a short-term sales tax rather than a parcel tax.

Accountability again is a key issue. They want a set of specific funding priorities that can be measured and tracked. The longer the duration of the parcel tax, the more accountability is required, since they were concerned that as time goes on voters would forget about what was promised. They want a community-led, independent assessment of the district's funding priorities and benchmarks. They would trust independent financial experts to audit the status of the parcel tax and make recommendations to the district and the public.

There is a segment of the public that simply does not want to raise taxes. That shows up on the Vanguard every time I post on this topic and it represents about 31% of the voting population according to polling. Given that you have to get 66.7% support to win a parcel tax, that does not leave much margin for error.

The polling shows that this is a winnable election--that people if convinced that the school district could be held accountable, if the tax proposal is for a limited time period, if sold this issue, two-thirds of the public would vote for it.

But here is the problem: November is not the time for convincing.

Here's why.

The polling that you see is the result of around six months of concentrated news coverage in which the schools' budget crisis was the top news story and the top concern for many in the public. From January until at least April, the issue dominated the news. And even now it remains high on people's minds.

Even after this long period of sustained coverage, the polling results show that if the election were held today, the parcel tax would fail. And we need to remember that is with essentially a margin of error of plus or minor 8. That means actual support at the $80 could be anywhere from 54% to 70% and the actual support of the $140 could be anywhere from 49% to 66%.

There is worse news. Schools are not going to be the top concern on people's minds this fall. That is because almost everyone is very concerned about the Presidential election. The national media which will drip onto the Davis Enterprise's front page will compete with local news. Even on the Vanguard, the Presidential Election will likely from time to time penetrate onto our blog.

In addition, we expect a bitterly contested contest for State Senate between Lois Wolk and Greg Aghazarian. There are eleven initiatives on the ballot including things such as gay marriage and parental consent for abortion. There are several environmental initiatives as well. All of these will diffuse attention from various constituencies.

The first four months of the year saw the direct threat of teacher firings, school closures, and student marches. However, between September and November, the budget will be a more distant threat. The threat will not be looming around the corner, it will not be the focus of the school board, the papers, the community like it was last winter and early spring, and as a result there will not be the concerted coverage and the urgency that we saw.

The community did rally behind the schools, but to sustain that effort is more difficult. To get beyond the 30% of the public to the 85% that may turnout will be difficult. It will take organization, money, and people. That may happen, but many of the people who would ordinarily walk for the schools, will instead focus on Barack Obama, Lois Wolk, and some even people like Charlie Brown.

If we could not get to two-thirds after the type of sustained attention this received this winter and spring, how are we going to do it now during perhaps the most important Presidential election of some people's lives? It is a prospect to be sure.

I think Janice Bridge last Monday raised an excellent point--it would be a great advantage come January to know that the money will be there for the teachers and the programs when they start working on the next budget. The more I think about it, the more I think it will be a great advantage to passing the parcel tax when the public sees that if they do not pass the parcel tax in March, the district will be laying off 100 teachers in May. That level of urgency is unfair to the teachers and the employees of the district, but necessary for the students, the parents, and the public to once again rally around the schools, this time not to raise money through a campaign for schools but rather to go out into the community and convince them why they should vote to give the school district an additional $80 to $140 per year.

In March, again we'd be looking at the 30% core school supporting turnout that has passed parcel tax after parcel tax. The parcel tax would be the only issue for consideration. The newspapers can focus on the issue too, lowering the cost.

The more I think about it, the more I believe the school district is making a big mistake pushing through for November. The more I think March is the best window to pass this thing.

The thought by the school district is that if they don't pass the parcel tax in November, they can do it again for March. That sounds good in theory, but they are relying on the efforts and energy of volunteers. The more you wear out volunteer efforts, the less return you get. If you push people in November trying to pass a parcel tax, you will not get the same energy coming back in March.

For all of these reasons, at the end of the day, I think the school board needs to re-think their decision to go for it in November. The public needs to be sold on this, and trying to teach 85% of the public in November is an overwhelmingly daunting task that does not have to be attempted.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

County Needle Exchange Program Makes Mess of Parks

Something a little different for everyone on a Sunday morning. Earlier this week there was a story in the Woodland Daily Democrat that a flood of hypodermic needles was showing up in Woodland City Parks.

A year ago, the County Board of Supervisors approved a needle-exchange program in an effort to cut down on diseases spread through the use of intravenous drug users.

However, now the Woodland City council is shocked and frustrated to find out that a county health contractor has been distributing these needles in one of the parks, without consulting the city.

This prompted strongly worded complaints from city officials to the county.

The Board of Supervisors voted by a 4-1 margin to support this program a year ago. The one dissenting voice was Matt Rexroad.

Mr. Rexroad is quoted in the Daily Democrat article:

One county official who does not support the program, however, is Matt Rexroad, the only supervisor to vote against the program when it came up before the board last August.

"I wish I could kill this program so badly, but I can't," Rexroad said.

Rexroad said beyond the health risk of having used needles in public places lies the greater question of the program's effectiveness.

"I keep hearing, if we do this it prevents disease and it will save us money," Rexroad said. "I don't know if I believe that in this case."

The program cost the county around $100,000 to implement - money, Rexroad said, that would be more effectively spent providing the county's impoverished children with health insurance.

"We're talking about $100,000 for a program, when the county is in an economic free-fall right now," Rexroad said. "In terms of bang for your buck, I would rather put $100,000 in the hands of children than the hands of IV drug users."

I find myself in an interesting position on this issue. I support the program in concept. I think these diseases are a severe public health threat in some areas and such exchange programs have been shown to be effective.

However, at the same time, I am appalled at the response of Cheryl Boney, who is the deputy director of public health programs for Yolo County.

When she was made aware of the problem, she pulled the plug on the park exchange:

Boney noted that when the city notified her of the problem, she immediately pulled the plug on the park exchange.

"We were made aware of the concern of doing it in the park," Boney said. "Once we were aware of it, we took care of it.

This is where I start having a problem, who told her to do a needle exchange in a Woodland City Park without informing the Woodland City Council? Could you imagine what would happen in Davis if they did that here without consulting the Davis City Council?

She continues:

The new program is a work-in-progress, Boney said, and Freeman Park was a learning example for the county.

"It's a new program and we're working out the details," Boney said.

Working out a few details? Details like informing the city and the police as to what you are doing? Like handing out needles in a park to begin with, which concentrates drug usage in an area where children and families are likely to frequent?

The article continues:

"[Woodland City Manager Mark] Deven reported in a City Council weekly newsletter Friday that the county agreed to cease distribution in the park and considered labeling their needles to better track where they end up."

That is a good start. Here is the thing, this may be a new program to Yolo County, but this is not a new concept. So when the Ms. Boney is saying we're still working out the details it does not really make sense. Details can be gleaned from other programs. Very basic things should apply, namely interjurisdictional cooperation.

It is commonsense that if you are going to hand out needles in a City's park you inform the city and their police department about it. It also seems commonsense that maybe a city park is not the place to hand out needles.

Ms. Boney continues:

"We're kind of going through that initial education period... We hope there will be support for the program."

It is hard to support such a program when you do not have confidence in those who are administrating it. It could be a good program, but there were such basic failings at the onset, that even those of us who are strongly in support of such efforts have no choice but to question it.

Where is the accountability here? I respect that Matt Rexroad opposes this, but what I really want to see is someone step up and make it work. Where do the rest of the county board of supervisors stand on this?

Ms. Boney believes that if the program prevents one case of HIV in the county, it will be a net savings to the county. I hope that is correct and it is one of the reasons I continue to support the program. However, I continue to have to question the competence of those administering this and the oversight. Who oversees administration of these type of programs? What is the board of supervisors going to do about it? We have so far only heard from Supervisor Rexroad--where do the four Supervisors who supported the program stand on this issue now that it has shown to be a problem in its current form?

---Doug Paul Davis reporting