Ballot Arguments in For Measure W--The Parcel Tax

The ballot arguments have been submitted both for and against the Parcel Tax. This marks the first time in awhile that there has been an argument submitted against a parcel tax ballot initiative. Read the arguments both for and against Measure W and decide for yourself.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR MEASURE W

Yes on W: Continuing a Quality Education for our Kids!

Davis public schools are among the best in the state because generations of residents have made investing in education a top commitment of our community.

Measure W is needed to make up for the shortfall in state funding immediately and over the next several years. Without Measure W our schools will face severe program cuts and teacher layoffs.

The Davis School Board cut educational programs and made significant cutbacks in school administration this past year. An unprecedented community-wide fundraising effort was necessary to preserve core educational programs, and prevent teacher layoffs for the 2008/2009 school year only. But we cannot rely on such extraordinary stop-gap efforts to fund our schools.

Measure W will provide a reliable funding source for critical educational programs for the next three school years. Homeowners can continue our community's tradition of preserving quality schools for $120 per year, or $10 per month.

Measure W will:

• Protect science, math and English programs;
• Keep class sizes small;
• Fund classes and teachers for music, art, social studies and foreign language;
• Preserve athletics and physical fitness programs; and
• Support our school librarians.

Every dollar Measure W generates will go directly to classrooms and instructors for student learning. Not one dollar from Measure W can be spent on administration. An independent Citizen's Oversight Committee will track all funds.

Measure W is designed for Davis. Apartments are assessed a lower amount and there is a voluntary exemption for seniors.

We ask that you VOTE YES on W to continue our community's long-standing tradition of investing in education because this investment benefits not just our children, it benefits all of us.

Signed:

Judy Davis (Retired Elementary School Principal)
Jay Gerber (Business Owner)
Eleanor Neagley (Davis Teacher)
Janet Berry (Parent and Community Volunteer)
Many Carbahal (Accountant and Local Business Owner)

ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE W

Measure W is a continuous effort by the School Board to seek voter approval to place a third local tax into effect in addition to Measure K: The School Facilities Bond passed in a Special Election in 2000 and Measure Q which passed last year and now with Measure W as a nearly identically written proposal to Measure Q to provide additional funding for Instructional programs which if passed in addition to the two other existing measures will increase the amount of special taxes paid to the school district from $258. to $378. per single unit dwelling and increase of 32%. despite that there has been a projected slight decrease in enrollment in the district from 8,863 to 8,833 students between the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years with less enrollment in addition to two (2) additional tax measures passed by the voters in previous years for other government organizations for their other purposes are still in effect doesn't justify supporting this proposed new tax.

In Davis the cost of living is already excessively high due to such new taxes and increases in recent years such as Measure W imposed on many middle income property owners not exempted from low income exemption provisions thereby subjecting them to possible future hardship as well such as possibly being evicted from their or excluded from purchasing residences due to the unaffordability to pay these current and new taxes.

In the interests to preserve the affordable cost of living for Davis residents against this excessive and continuous "tax raising frenzy" being sought by our local elected officials to gouge the local residents with excessive taxation: Vote No on Measure W.

For more information for more reasons to Vote No on Measure W please log on to the following
website address:

http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/vme/arena

Signed:

Thomas Randall, Jr.

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE W

The Proponents for Measure W don't mention in their ballot argument:

-That Measure Q was passed by voters last year still remains in effect assessing an additional $200. per year per parcel if Measure W passes for the remaining three (3) year term in effect as both tax assessments would serve nearly duplicate purposes in funding instructional programs and therefore a significant amount of additional funding could still be provided if Measure W doesn't pass.

-Measure W's provisions set a flexible tax rate per year up to a maximum of $120. per single unit parcel subject to an annual review with public hearings to be held by the School Board which is not legally required to set the rate at the preferred limit advised through public testimony or the recommendations of the Oversight Committee. This situation places taxpayers in the unfair situation in which the rate assessed to them could fluctuate from year to year and is unpredictable to specifically fixing their rate of annual property tax assessment thereby precluding them from accurately contemplating in advance what their total tax rate assessed would be annually and especially problematic provided the current cost of living is being affected by higher rates of inflation.

-Measure W's provisions contain no eligibility limit for tax reductions or exemptions for low
income property owners in the district (including some university employees and students) to pay the additional taxes imposed if the measure passes.

Vote No on Measure Wrong, Vote No on Measure W.

Signed:

Thomas Randall, Jr.

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE W

Please don't be fooled by false and misleading arguments against Measure W.

FACT: Measure W is designed to address immediate school funding shortfalls that forced the Davis School Board to authorize substantial cuts for the 2008-2009 school year. A community-wide fundraising drive then restored important educational programs for only one year. Measure W would fund these valued services for the next three years.

• FACT: Programs funded by Measure W are NOT INCLUDED in any existing parcel tax measures.
  
  
• FACT: Measure W will expire in three years.
  
  
• FACT: Measure W includes a lower rate for apartments and an exemption for seniors so they are released from undue tax burden.
  
  
• FACT: Measure W meets immediate funding needs - it does not create new programs.
  
  
• FACT: If Measure W is rejected, the Davis Board of Education will be forced to eliminate teaching positions and instructional programs.

Davis residents know the quality of life in Davis is linked to the quality of our schools. Our children, our neighborhoods, even property values, are supported
by quality schools.

Though the economy is uncertain, we know that the way to a better future is to protect the quality of public education. it's time to demonstrate our values once again. We ask that you vote YES on Measure W to support our schools and our community.

To learn more visit www.YesforOurStudents.org. Thank you.

Signed:

Helen Spangler (Davis Teacher)
Glen Holderreed (Investment Adviser)
Prudencio Mendez (Small Business Owner)
James Beckwith (President and CEO Five Star Bank)
Lois Crowe (Retired UCD Science Researcher)

Vanguard Commentary

At this point in time, there is no organized group or committee opposing the Measure W parcel tax that will be on the ballot for the November election. However, Thomas Randall, Jr., submitted an argument against the parcel tax and a rebuttal to the argument in favor of Measure W.

Mr. Randall wrote these arguments as an individual. While he is a member of the Yolo County Republican Central Committee, his statements are those of an individual and do not represent the Central Committee on this matter.

In fact, supporters of Measure W noted that Glen Holderreed, who signed the "Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure W" is also a member of the Republican Central Committee, and his views also do not represent the Republican Central Committee on this matter. At this time, that organization has not taken a position on the ballot measure.

The Yolo County Taxpayers Association, led by among others former Davis School Board Member John Munn, has not taken a position on the parcel tax and is not expected to do so.

From my standpoint, Mr. Randall's argument against Measure W is several long run-on sentences. More importantly however, several of the arguments are not accurate. For instance, Measure W and Measure Q do not fund any of the same programs, it does not create any new programs, and it only goes to fund educational programs--not administrators. In other words, the money goes directly into the classroom and if the measure is not passed, the money comes directly from the classroom.

The bottom line is this point by Measure W supporters:

"If Measure W is rejected, the Davis Board of Education will be forced to eliminate teaching positions and instructional programs."

That is what the public needs to weigh. There are few people in this community that are more cautious about raising new taxes than I am. I have been very outspoken on the issue of fiscal responsibility both by this school district and the city of Davis. I am very leery about potential rate hikes for water services, which by the way, dwarf this tax. The water rate hikes will likely be larger per month, than Measure W is per year.

Unfortunately, I see no alternative at this time to passing Measure W. The choice is clear, pay $120 additional in tax dollars or see teachers and programs cut. In the coming days, the Vanguard will talk about exactly what that means. Tomorrow, the Vanguard examines some very interesting data from the school district on spending over the past few school years.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Vanguard Radio Tonight on KDRT 6 PM to 7 PM

Join us tonight on KDRT 101.5 FM from 6 PM to 7 PM.

Tonight's guest is Dr. Jann Murray-Garcia a local activist, we'll be talking about some of her youth projects, hate crime, and Barack Obama.

Callers are welcome to call in at: 530.792.1648

The big news from KDRT is the frequency change that will save Davis' local radio station. Beginning on September 23, KDRT will move to 95.7 FM, it will be a frequency that will enable all of Davis and even surrounding areas to listen to the broadcasts. In addition, the new website which will be launched will have streaming and archiving capabilities.

Up until now, we have podcasted Vanguard archives for listening from this blog. A hearty thank you to Don Shor for making that happen for us.

Press release from Davis Media Access

KDRT-LP remains on air

Frequency change, streaming loom as big changes for small station Davis Media Access (DMA) announced today that its 18-month battle to keep low-power radio station KDRT on the air had come to a "mostly satisfactory” conclusion.

“The Federal Communications Commission found a way to squeeze us in, instead of squeezing us out,” said Jeff Shaw, station director for KDRT and a DMA staff member. "The bad news is: we have to move. The good news is: we're still on the air, which means we will be able to continue serving the community.”

DMA holds the license and provides a home for the volunteer-driven radio station, which has operated at 101.5 FM in Davis since its launch on Sept. 24, 2004. Beginning Sept. 23, KDRT will broadcast at 95.7 FM.

In January 2007, Results Radio, the parent corporation of KMJE, a commercial station in Gridley, filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to move to Yolo County, where its signal would displace KDRT at 101.5 FM.

The FCC authorized the LPFM service in 2000 to encourage localism in radio, which had been severely diminished during several decades worth of media consolidation in the commercial sector. However, the FCC gave LPFM stations secondary status under commercial stations, which makes such encroachments possible.

Once KDRT found out about the petition, its organizers filed a complaint with the FCC. Shaw said the past 18 months have been spent dealing with lawyers, broadcast engineers, FCC staffers and Results Radio representatives, as well as waiting for the FCC to move through its decision-making process. KDRT was guided through the process by broadcast attorney Michael Couzens of San Francisco, who successfully fought a similar encroachment in Spokane, WA.

“From the moment we found out that KDRT’s frequency was being threatened by encroachment, a coalition of KDRT programmers, other community volunteers, and DMA’s staff and board began organizing a concerted campaign to try to fight this,” Shaw said. “The ‘Save Our Station’ or SOS campaign focused on public education, cultivating support from elected officials and public policy makers, and raising money to pay for the legal and engineering fees associated with the fight.

‘We knew it was a long shot, and we also knew we had to try,” he said.

The 95.7 frequency was not available a year ago, and was only freed up through the process of the FCC changing some of its rule making on the Low-Power service. "The unfortunate turmoil that KDRT-LP was subjected to when its frequency was undermined by a full-power station had a silver lining," said Pete Tridish, founder of the Prometheus Radio Project, an LPFM support and advocacy group based in Philadelphia. "While some smaller low-power stations were quickly intimidated by corporate lawyers who told them their channel was no longer theirs, KDRT's strong organization helped bring public attention to the plight of low-power groups having their stations taken.

“The impact of KDRT’s story was felt in Washington DC, and the FCC has at least provisionally changed course on supporting the rights of community media as the result of KDRT-LP and stations in similar predicaments standing up for their rights,” Tridish said.

Autumn Labbé-Renault, DMA’s executive director and one of the original conveners of KDRT, said the station stood out because of its strong volunteer base, large number of public affairs shows, assistance to other LPFM’s (KDRT volunteers organized the Low-Power Radio Roundup in October 2005, a conference for more than 100 LPFM practitioners from three states), and broad-based community support, including letters from the Davis City Council, Yolo County Board of Supervisors, Assemblywoman Lois Wolk and Congressman Mike Thompson. Individual donations to the SOS campaign totaled nearly $14k.

“For the FCC to look at KDRT and say ‘this is what we charged them to do, and they have been successful’ and then pull the plug just didn't make sense,” Labbé-Renault said. “It would have been a serious breach of public interest, as well.”

Big changes looming

Much of the day-to-day operations of KDRT are coordinated through the 12-member volunteer KDRT Steering Committee, which comprises programmers and at-large volunteers. Chairperson George Moore also serves on DMA’s board. Moore said that rather than depleting KDRT, the encroachment battle energized both KDRT’s volunteers and the larger community.

Moore added that the frequency change brings with it some good opportunities for the station. As part of the transfer, KDRT will increase from 83 watts to 100 watts, which is the maximum allowable strength for LPFMs. The increase will strengthen KDRT’s signal in parts of Davis.

The station will be off the air intermittently between Sept. 6 and Sept. 16 as it re-engineers, and plans to fully re-launch at 95.7 on Sept. 23, 2008. Additional changes include web streaming beginning Sept. 23 at www.kdrt.org, and a revamped KDRT website and programming schedule.

“This is great proof that the Davis community cares deeply about freedom. As long as people's voices can be heard on their airwaves, we have a powerful tool for questioning the work of our government while also listening to great music,” said Nancy Bodily, who hosts “Earth Momma’s Mountain Music” on KDRT Thursdays at 10 a.m. “This community dug into its pockets and hearts to come up against the FCC, and our small voice was heard all the way to the office of the chairman.” Bodily also serves on the KDRT Steering Committee and the
DMA board.

Labbé-Renault said help came from many sources, including KDRT/DMA volunteers, elected officials, community members, local musicians and businesses—especially the Davis Food Co-op, which mounted several fund raisers, other LPFMs, as well as Prometheus Radio Project.

“At the end of the day, I can’t say I’m exactly glad this happened,” Labbé-Renault concludes. “I wouldn’t want anyone to go through this. I said publicly in April 2007 that KDRT would not go off the air on my watch. I meant it as a call to action, and I can say that we are all gratified by the response and support.”

A celebration of KDRT’s success is planned as part of “On the Backlot,” DMA’s 20th anniversary celebration and free community concert, Saturday, Oct. 18 from 3-9 p.m. at DMA, 1623 Fifth Street in Davis. More details are available at www.davismedia.org

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Closing the Circle: Examining City Employee Contributions in 2008 City Council Elections

In my field of study, Political Science, researchers often work with intricate and complex mathematical models to determine the link between campaign contributions and public policy. The search for influence was often muddled by preexisting partisan and philosophical ties between interest groups and public policy makers. Part of the complexity also arises from the large number of contrary interests pressing policy makers in seemingly opposite directions. In some ways, the pattern in local politics seems much more simple.

As Rich Rifkin pointed out in several columns leading up to the 2008 city council election, there is really only one group of public employees that was active in the council elections--the firefighters. Indeed in our examination of the Form 460 (Campaign Statements from the City Council Candidates), we find only a few very small contributions from city employees who are not firefighters. A Davis Police Officer and head of the Davis Police Officer Association made small contributions to incumbents Stephen Souza and Don Saylor, and the union itself made only a $100 contribution to candidate Sydney Vergis.

Compare that to the enormity of the contributions from the Davis Professional Firefighters Local 3494 and you see any influence is quickly dwarfed.

In the chart below you will see contributions by Local 3494 members cross-referenced with their 100K Club ranking. In the image below you only see top 20 members of the 100K Club. If you click on the link below you can see the entire list along with their city of residence. Thanks to Rich Rifkin for help with some of the data, along with yet another public records request from the city of Davis.

• CLICK HERE for the full list of Campaign Contributions by Local 3494 Members

The direct contributions total $12,000 to exactly three candidates--Incumbents Stephen Souza and Don Saylor and challenger Sydney Vergis. They are contributed in increments of $100 per Davis campaign finance regulations that limit individual contributions to $100 per person, per campaign cycle. The members of the Local 3494 union have found a way to bundle the money in an effort to increase their influence. This is part of the complaint against them in the Yolo County Grand Jury report.

As we know however from the campaign, direct contributions are not the end of the story. Independent Expenditure Committees in Davis must report their activity in the California Form 496 and their committee is required to fill out Form 450. Unlike direct contributions, there is no limitation in terms of their spending activities. Thus as we know, the Davis Firefighters launched two different IEs in favor of their preferred candidates. According to their filing from May 12, 2008, the Davis Firefighters spent $6070.46 on the Print and Design of the brochure featured in the link above. For the entire six month period ending on June 30, 2008, they report $8245.63 which includes expenditures on a door hanger they report as $373.03 per candidate.

The combination of direct contributions and independent expenditures totals over $20,000 for the period. A reported spending that actually seems a bit on the low side.

Nevertheless, this expenditure is in fact unique for city employees in Davis. No other group of employees have organized in this manner to attempt to influence the city council election outcome. And from past elections, we know that this is not unique.

The question now comes to what exactly this influence buys the Davis Professional Firefighters. Here we revisit our findings from the 100K Club of Davis article.

As we see from these charts, the Davis Firefighters emerge as the "top dawgs" in terms of both base salary and salary plus overtime...



The first chart shows that the Davis Fire Department makes the highest average base salary of any Davis city department outpacing the City Manager's Office by a good $15,000 and outpacing their fellow public safety department, the police, by over $20,000.



However, that advantage increases tremendously when overtime salaries are factored in. Even, given the fact that roughly 17% of the overtime salaries are reimbursed by the state of California, these statistics show that by far, the Davis Firefighters are the best paid workers in the city. And again, it is not even close.



Here you can see their overall slice of the pie, just looking at base salaries.

And what we discovered yesterday is that even with respect to other locales in the county, the city of Davis' employee scales are skewed.



Where does that leave us? Unfortunately it leaves us right where we started--an unsustainable situation for the city of Davis where the rising cost of employee salaries are threatening to throw the city's budget out of whack.



So we end this circle where we began--the Davis tax revenue has not kept up with the rising cost of employee salaries. We spent a good deal of time this spring talking about pensions--the cost of pensions for the city of Davis was just $900,000 in 2000-01, this year it's almost $6 million. And the bubble of retirements with the current 3% at 50 arrangement have not hit yet.

What is the cost of these rising expenditures, one needs to look no further than the front page of yesterday's Davis Enterprise for the answer. In there was an article about the inability to repair some of the Davis bikeways because the city lacks the funding. This by itself is a safety hazard. People talk about the fact that the fire department is responsible for protecting lives--there is no doubt that is true, even if the actual number of fires is fairly low compared to other service calls. However, as I have stated before it is unclear to me that we are less safe paying folks a strong wage of say $70,000 compared to a wage of $109K. It is less clear to me that we are more safe now, unable to pay for crucial road and other infrastructure repairs than we would be paying the firefighters a bit less, and keeping the overtime under control.

What the city calls unmet needs is really a budget deficit. It is a deficit between what the city needs to spend and what it can spend. And unmet needs are insidious. Failure to make repairs now, means more expensive repairs later. Failure to make repairs now means possible safety concerns down the line. The pattern here is quite clear. The residents of Davis who are concerned about taxation, need to watch this much more closely. The residents here concerned about quality of services need to watch this more closely as well. At some point, the city will need to figure out a way to finance this and it means taxation, development, and possibly cutback on services.

Stay tuned to future Vanguard articles as we explore other aspects of the city council finance records.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

100K Club of Yolo County

Two weeks ago, we had our listing of the 100K Club of Davis. In it were the 61 employees of the city of Davis who earned $100,000 or more in 2007. Of those 61, 48 were in public safety and 38 of those were firefighters. Now we have compiled through another public records act request the 100K Club of Yolo County. There were 64 Yolo County employees who earned $100,000 or more in 2007.

• CLICK HERE For the full list of 64 Yolo County Employees

The top employee of Yolo County in terms of salary not surprisingly is Sharon Jensen, who is the County Administrator (CAO), a position comparable to a city manager. She is followed by Sheriff Prieto. County Council Robyn Drivon is fourth. District Attorney Jeff Reisig is perhaps somewhat surprisingly only 9th. There are also three members of the Psychiatrist-Board in the top 10.

We have also broken down the elected officials who made the 100K list.



For the sake of comparison, we threw Public Defender Barry Melton on this list even though he is appointed rather than elected. Notably not on the list is the County Superintendent of Schools. Also as people are aware, Yolo County Supervisors make considerably less than $100,000. Also, the Public Guardian does not make the list either.

Breakdown by Department: District Attorney's Office Dominates



There is no department in the county, that is comparable to the firefighters in the city of Davis which had 38 of the top 61 salaries for 2007. However, the District Attorney's office did have 15 of the top 64 salaries, three times that of the next highest departments--County Administrator and Planning and Public Works. Child Support Services, Mental Health, the Public Defender's Office, and the Sheriff's Office all had four employees each in the 100K club of Yolo County.

City of Davis Compared to County and Woodland

One of our Woodland Counterparts, the Woodland Journal just ran their 100K Club of Woodland this past Sunday. They found 18 employees who will make $100,000 or more this year and just 10 employees last year.

To put these numbers into perspective, the city of Davis had 61 employees reach the 100K Club in 2007 out of a total of 422 total employees. That's roughly 14.4% of the employees in Davis. Yolo County by contrast has between 1300 and 1500 total employees of which 64 make 100K or more. That translates at the high end to just under 5% of the employees of Yolo County making 100K or more. We do not have the exact numbers in Woodland, but we imagine the total number of employees is comparable to Davis. That would put them in the range of Yolo County for percentages this year even lower than that last year.

Why is the salary structure in Davis so different from that of Woodland and Yolo County? One really has to look no further than the influence of the public employees unions in local politics and really we are talking about one public employees union--the firefighters. As we noted, 38 of the top 61 salaries in Davis are firefighters.

The Woodland Journal notes:

"Common to both cities is the relative earnings by those who accrue overtime. An examination of the public records provided by the city reveal that 30 Woodland employees made over $10,000 in overtime pay during 07-08. Of those 30, only one employee did not work in the police or fire departments.

...

86 employees made over $5,000 in overtime. Three of those did not work in the police or fire departments."

This shows that the same phenomena is at work in Woodland, but not nearly as severe as it is in the city of Davis. The County of course does not have a Fire Department. It has a large contingent of workers who provide crucial county services to residents, but most of them are not making the huge salaries with the huge overtimes that the city public safety workers earn.

Tomorrow we will attempt to complete the circle by presenting data on campaign contributions by public safety employees in the city of Davis.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Vanguard Reports: Form 700 Filings by Davis City Councilmembers

In the latest installment of our series of examinations of local public records disclosures, we examine California Form 700 filings by the Davis City Council. These are the Statements of Economic Interests.

By law, the state:

Requires every state and local government agency to adopt a unique conflict-of-interest code. The code lists each position within the agency filled by individuals who make or participate in making governmental decisions that could affect their personal economic interests. The code also requires individuals holding those positions to periodically file Form 700 disclosing certain personal economic interests as determined by the code’s “disclosure categories.” These individuals are called “designated employees” or “code filers.”

For the city of Davis every elected councilmember, every candidate for city council, city management that is in the position of making governmental decisions that could affect their personal economic interests (mostly upper management of the various divisions), and city commissioners are required to fill out a California Form 700.

These disclosures are vital to protect government against officials engaging in conflicts of interest.

According to Gov. Code section 81002(c):

"Assets and income of public officials which may be materially affected by their official actions should be disclosed and in appropriate circumstances the officials should be disqualified from acting in order that conflicts of interest may be avoided."

Gov. Code Section 87100:

"No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest."

In order to determine which personal interests may be affected while carrying out official duties, the state and local governments require officials to disclose their financial assets including stocks and bonds, investments, real property holdings, income, loans, and business positions, gifts, and travel payments.

The FPPC provides detail on conflict of interest codes and disclosure requirements.

"For most other officials, including employees of state and local government agencies, it is up to the agencies that employ them to decide what their disclosure requirements are. Each state and local agency must adopt a conflict of interest code tailoring the disclosure requirements for each position within the agency to the types of governmental decisions a person holding that position would make. For example, an employee who approves contracts for goods or services purchased by her agency should not be required to disclose real estate interests, but should be required to disclose investments in and income from individuals and entities that supply equipment, materials, or services to the agency. (Gov. Code Sections 87301 and 87302.)"

For those who watch city council meetings on a regular basis, the most obvious examine of disqualification occurs when a project is within a given distance of a councilmember's home or property. Under those conditions, the councilmember simply disqualifies themselves from the participation in the discussion and the vote. One good example was on the 3rd and B visioning project, then Mayor Sue Greenwald was disqualified from voting on it, as a resident of the community immediately impacted by the project. However, she does retain the rights of a citizen and actually spoke during public comment as a member of the public on the issue.

Most of the time, these decisions are made voluntarily to avoid the appearance impropriety and the city attorney will assist members of the council in making the determination as to when they are conflicted out of the process.

However, for something so important, the public really knows very little about the form 700 or what is contained within the disclosures. Like most documents, these are public records, they can be requested by any member of the public for perusal or to be copied.

Davis City Council Form 700s

The Vanguard made a public records act request and received a copy of every filed Form 700 in the City of Davis. For the purposes of this article however, we have decided to only post those forms filed by the five members of the Davis City Council.

Again these are public records, available to anyone, the Vanguard is simply making them more accessible to the public.

• Mayor Ruth Asmundson
• Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor
• Councilmember Sue Greenwald
• Councilmember Lamar Heystek
• Councilmember Stephen Souza--part 1 part 2
  

What have we learned from these documents? One thing it is important to note, that when disclosing real property, the individual's main private residence is not a disclosable interest. For that reason neither Don Saylor who owns his home nor Lamar Heystek who rents an apartment have any real property. Neither do they have any reportable investments.

The most interesting disclosures are from Stephen Souza, Sue Greenwald and Ruth Asmundson.

Councilmember Stephen Souza's disclosure is in fact the longest at 27 pages. He has one investment in a stock, but the majority of his disclosures are the properties and apartment complexes--roughly 48 different properties are disclosed as doing business within during the course of his duties as a pool service vendor. That puts him in a very interesting position with regard to a variety of policies.

Mayor Ruth Asmundson has a very interesting investment of over $100,000 in the First Northern Bank of Dixon which is one of the main banks that finances development in Davis. She has held that asset from 1976. She also owns less than 10 percent partnership in about four properties, two of which are in Davis including the Parque Plaza on Alvarado and Sycamore West Apts on Sycamore Lane.

Finally Councilmember Sue Greenwald owns two properties in Davis plus stock in SBC Communications, SW Air, Chiron, and Exxon.

As mentioned earlier, the Vanguard at this point is not posting the Form 700s from other Davis Officials or the Commissioners. However, a perusal of the Form 700s provides us invaluable information about our public servants as they carry out their official duties for the city of Davis. Stay tuned this week, as the Vanguard releases more public documents from both the city of Davis as well as Yolo County.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Special to Vanguard: Supervisor Rexroad Responds to Comments on Re-Entry Facility

On Friday, the Vanguard covered a proposed Re-entry facility that was approved by the County Board of Supervisors and funded by state money from Assembly Bill 900. Part of the discussion that emerged on Friday had to do with the location. Some of the comments suggested that Woodland would be a good location for the facility and suggested that if people such as Supervisor Matt Rexroad support such a facility, they ought to put it in Woodland. Supervisor Rexroad actually went to the Woodland City Council to ask them to put the facility in Woodland, but there was no interest in doing so. Then again, Supervisors Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada also support the bill, but to the best of anyone's understand have not requested that the city of Davis house the facility.

Here is Supervisor Rexroad's response where he calls out Davis residents for supporting social programs but not being willing to house them in Davis.

I just took some time to read over these comments [on the re-entry facility] and am struck by one thing.

Most of you folks that read this are from Davis. Some of you are questioning why this project should not be located in Woodland. That is a fair question.

Another fair question is when the people of Davis are going to step up to the plate to provide land use that facilitates social services?

Woodland actually has a mission that provides food and housing for hundreds. Does Davis have a similar permanent facility? No. It moves around from place to place so as not to upset any one neighborhood.

Woodland is the location of a large facility for the Yolo County Housing Authority. Davis has a few locations that are a fraction of the size of the one in Woodland or West Sacramento.

The Housing Authority just purchased a home in Woodland and will likely purchase one in West Sacramento next. This was Prop 63 money for the mentally ill. Davis?

I don't want to hear about a bunsh of new senior housing either. Woodland has plenty of that and places it almost without objection from the community.

I hear many of you claiming that you desire social services to be provided -- just not in Davis. That part is left out. Somewhere else in Yolo County would be fine.

The largest piece of industrial zoned property in the unincorporated part of Yolo County is Covell Village. How about that location?

The re-entry facility is something that we are going to work through over the coming weeks and even years.

My question for you is -- what land is Davis going to set aside for some of these things?

When some of you question my desire to do these things I simply point to the leadership Woodland took to place the Wayfarer Center over the objections of a few neighbors. My vote was the deciding one and my involvement was great. Woodland did that. Davis?

It seems funny to me that for all the social programs that the people that read this blog are likely to advocate for -- the use of land in your precious city never seems to be part of the message.

Matt Rexroad

Water Project: Responding to Councilmember Saylor's Letter to the Editor

In response to the emerging debate over water as the result of the council dispute that emerged as much over process on July 29 as over policy, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor wrote a letter to the editor of the Davis Enterprise. It was a letter than was long on conciliatory rhetoric, but unfortunately short on detailed substance.

This story will attempt not necessarily to fill in that detail, as we have presented greater detail in a number of other locations. The main goal here is to raise questions that will need to be more definitively answered by the city.

"Council members are acutely aware of the costs of this project. We are also acutely aware of the importance of securing a reliable water supply as our wells are depleted, and meeting state requirements to reduce environmental impacts from our wastewater discharges."

This is the crux of the matter that needs more definitive answers. I have watched these meetings on water since January 2007 and my overriding sense is that with the exception of Councilmember Sue Greenwald and at times Councilmember Lamar Heystek, there are few tough and probing questions from council on these points.

The central argument that proponents have put forth is as follows:

The problem that Davis faces is that the water discharged by the city does not meet current standards for water quality. This is primarily a water supply issue because although the water meets drinking standards as it enters into one's tap, it does not meet outflow standards.

The tough question that Councilmember like Don Saylor never seem to press for is whether the only solution is to go forth with a water supply plan immediately.

But the statement does something else--it rhetorically acknowledges that there will be costs to this project without actually discussing what those costs will be and the fact that the costs will be currently accrued with a wastewater treatment facility--a project that everyone agrees needs to happen now.

Estimates for this cost to the ratepayer begin with a doubling of the cost of water on a monthly basis to an increase of $100 to $200 depending largely on estimates for the cost of the project. These costs have gone up considerably over the course of this water discussion.

[For a good overview of the history please see my article from January 2007 where I trace the debate over water projects back to the beginning of this process. ]

There has been little discussion or acknowledgment about who in the public can afford it. And while the cost of delaying the water supply project may increase the overall cost of the project, it may also decrease the hit on the individual ratepayer in terms of their monthly bill. People on fixed incomes will be hurt most by these rate hikes.

Some have suggested that the taste of water alone necessitates this change. In fact, one can get better tasting water for much cheaper. For instance, one can get a gallon of water at a grocery story for less than forty cents a gallon. Even if one gets close to three gallons a day that way, a large amount of drinking water, the cost per month would be less than the cost of this project. Other filtration systems are even less in cost. For instance, I use a Brita filter which runs me less than $10 per month, much less than a rate hike in water.

Mayor Pro Tem Saylor continues:

"The NWRI panel recommended that Davis pursue a balanced water portfolio combining surface water, ground water, conservation and reuse strategies. The unanimous findings of the panel are that no other alternative exists that would support these objectives as effectively, economically or environmentally as the proposed surface water project."

This runs along with the findings that the city has had for quite some time. Unfortunately it appears that Councilmember Sue Greenwald has some information that contradicts these findings. It would be helpful if the city council were willing to bring in those purported experts to give them a different view and a different consideration. However, instead of listening to what Councilmember Greenwald had to say and allowing her to continue to ask questions, she was inappropriately cut off. One is forced to ask what the council majority is afraid of by indulging the questions of Councilmember Greenwald or even more responsibly by allowing her experts to come forward. They would then have fuller information and could make an even better decision.

"All five council members have stated that surface water will be needed at some time. The panel report and presentation on July 29 concluded that delay in pursuing this project would result in significant cost increases, loss of winter water, loss of water rights and other serious negative consequences."

The first sentence is of course true. And it may be that the rest follows from it. But again, that is in dispute.

The staff report from the July 29, 2008 meeting read:

"The Panel concluded that the most serious consequence from postponing the project is the probability of losing the pending appropriative right to withdraw up to 46,100 acre-feet of water per year from the Sacramento River."

They further argued:

"The Panel concluded that postponement of the project to a later date would likely result in the loss of upstream water currently available for purchase to supplement the amount of water needed during the summer months."

This is true to some degree but it also somewhat misleading. At previous water workshops it became clear that winter water would almost always be available in some degree. However, during the summer months it becomes more problematic. The city would be allowed to extract water depending on the current water flow of the Sacramento River. As summer goes on, the amount of water to be extracted from the river will invariably go down. During dry years, the Sacramento River may not have enough water for extract at all. That would force the city to once again rely almost completely on ground water for its summer water supply--when water needs will be invariably higher.

In other words, when we need water the most, the water supply will be most problematic. And if that happens, will we even after these huge capital project expenditures, still remain out of compliance with discharge standards. These are serious questions that need to be asked and answered somehow.

If global warming reduces the amount of rainfall or even snowpack in the Sierras, the amount of runoff may be reduced into the Sacramento River. At the very least the water supply may fluctuate more widely meaning some years we have plenty of water and other years we do not.

That does not take into account the idea of holding our place in line. In theory, at present, the experts are correct about the line. But supposing reduced water in the future, where will that leave us and this line? Will communities such as Davis get nosed out by increasing needs by say Los Angeles in a future where there is less water? Climate change makes this a much more uncertain situation.

Have these tough questions been asked by the council sufficiently? Or are we potentially throwing a large amount of money down the drain for a solution that may not be here in the future?

Of course, the letter to the editor is not just about water, but about the council discussion as well. Councilmember Saylor refers the public to the streaming video and comments on council ground rules.

"The July 29 council discussion can be viewed on streaming video at the city of Davis Web site under 'City Council' video archives section (about three hours and 39 minutes into the meeting).

During that meeting, the mayor called a recess, acting under the provisions of the council ground rules. These ground rules govern your council's proceedings and conduct. They can be found [here]."

I invite the public to once again view the Youtube video which contains the final three minutes of Councilmember Greenwald's question-answer session with the water consultants, and then shows what transpired after the Mayor attempted to cut her off.

Unfortunately Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor delivers for the public very little detail on the water project that will severely increase the monthly cost of water to ratepayers. There are a number of questions that I would like to see addressed.

I have no problem with holding one's place in line at this point. I would however like to see each of the councilmembers aggressively but respectfully grill the consultants much as Councilmember Greenwald has. If the answer is at the end of the day, that we must go forward, I want it to be because we have no other choice rather than because we did not look into all the alternatives because the experts told us this was the only choice.

One point that needs to be explored is whether these consultants have industry ties. That was one of my problems with the original group of consultants--they seemed to have a financial stake in the city going forward with the process. Too often, the ties between consultant and industry are blurry at best. I think the city council, if they wish to be thorough and responsible, should encourage Sue Greenwald to put her consultants and experts forward and see if their advise is different, and if it is different, try to determine why and whether that advise might not be a better alternative. What does the council have to lose?

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

On Rememberance and the Celebration of Life

Just over two years ago, I started this blog out of a sense of disempowerment, a sense of frustration. I had a real sense that something was very wrong in our community. Our government was at times out of line and when a government is out of line it tramples on the rights of individuals everywhere. Not just those individuals whose rights the government's actions directly impact, but all citizens and residents.

From the holocaust we learn the price to be paid for inaction, as the Pastor Martin Niemoller learned all too late. One by one each group that the Nazis came for was greeted with inaction and indifference by the rest of the population. The realization of doom lays in the last lines of the Pastor's sequence: "Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Thankfully, we do not live in Nazi Germany, or anything that resembles it, but this is a universal message, not a particularized one. The price of democracy is eternal vigilance. The ideal of the watchdog is to alert the public when things are unseemly and flat out wrong.

I became a watch dog because no one it seemed was paying attention. I became a reporter (not a journalist but one who reports on events), because no one was reporting. I am tough on government and government officials because I hold them to a higher standard, I believe we deserve better than what we have, and moreover, I believe we can do better than what we are doing.

Along the way though, I learned a few things about humanity and myself. None driven home any more forcefully than it was yesterday.

Yesterday I attended the memorial service for Police Detective Paul Narr. I have gone to many places and talked to many people in various states of suffering and anguish during my two year tenure writing this blog. I thought I was prepared for just about anything. There have been times when I have literally had to cry because the emotions were so overwhelming. For example, covering the death of a 17 year old farm worker hit me especially hard.

It was nothing compared to yesterday. One grows up admiring police officers as the symbol of law and order, the tough guys who protect us from the bad people. They keep us safe while we sleep. Even for someone who has unfortunately had to call the police department to task at times for their treatment of certain groups of people, there is still an air of romanticism.

Standing in the back and watching as one-by-one these big, strong, and tough guys lay their emotions bare for all to see was especially difficult to watch. The subtext was even worse. We are all mortals and we will all one day perish from this place. We all know and accept that to varying degrees and with varying degrees of difficulty.

I think we all know that Police Officers accept the risk on a more daily basis than the rest of the population. Even in a place like Davis, there is a risk when you are on the front line attempting to confront and at times incarcerate people who have broken various laws.

When we see an act like that which happened to Sheriff's Deputy Jose Diaz--we tend to get angry and shake at the senselessness of it all.

When a heart attack befalls one of us, again, we wonder what could have been done to prevent it, but at the same time, I think there is a sense that these things happen.

When a young man of 41, who by all appearances was loved and adored by his family, friends, and colleagues, chooses to end his own life, it stuns us. We do not know what to say or how to react.

One of Detective Narr's colleagues suggested that the Detective was having a tough time. However the general, if unspoken sentiment seems to be from talking to many, that whatever problems he was having, he hid them well. And that makes this all the more shocking to his family, friends, and the community.

I did not know Paul Narr, I saw him a number of times passing on the street, I think I shook his hand a few times and exchanged pleasantries. He was always very cordial and even friendly. But here was a man who was born and raised in Davis, not much older than myself, with a young family, and for reasons that most of us will never understand something happened that convinced him he could go on no further.

It was that subtext that drove the events of yesterday. From all appearances he was a very unique character and a very loved person. I cannot possibly do him justice by repeating some of the anecdotes of those around him, but it goes without saying that he was one of a kind and around the Davis Police Department and this community he will be very much missed.

The final lesson was laid out by Reverend Glen Snyder, whose wife, Pat, is the assistant to the police chief. He read a very powerful passage that I cannot do justice to. But the suggestion in it is powerful, it suggests we all attend a funeral or memorial service every year. The reason is that when you listen to a memorial service, you hear the things that people remember about the departed.

It's not about money or solely about achievement, it's about their humanity and their character. The love for their friends and family. Those are what you are remembered for long after you have been professionally forgotten.

And so this weekend as we go about our lives and enjoy the remaining days of summer, enjoy your families, enjoy your friends, and enjoy your time together because for all of us, it will all be way too short. That is the lesson I learned above all else yesterday.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Re-entry facility: What is it and Why the Controversy

Those who read the Davis Enterprise might have noticed a joint letter to the editor by Davis' County Supervisors Helen Thomson (District 2-Davis) and Mariko Yamada (District 4-Davis). They were writing in support of the re-entry facility.

The re-entry facility is something that has been in the works for a few months now, but I have not until written about it. I figured after reading the letter that I should do so. But I first, I had questions so I went to fellow County Supervisor Matt Rexroad. Some people wonder why I have an affinity for Mr. Rexroad, but I will tell you why--I spent one hour yesterday on the phone with him, grilling him over the issue. I disagree with Mr. Rexroad far more often than I agree with him. But it was he and not Thomson or Yamada that convinced me that the re-entry facility is the right thing to do.

It is actually a very interesting issue because it cuts across a number of other issues including law enforcement, rehabilitation, and yes even land use. The latter is probably the most controversial part.

I first heard about this issue in early March. At that time, I was told that Yolo County had absolutely zero chance of getting a re-entry facility. However, the Board of Supervisors were also told by checking the box, they were eligible for $30 million to help fund an expansion of the county jail. The expansion of the county jail was going to happen anyway at the cost of $42 million, by getting state funding, Yolo County has received nearly 60 percent of that funding.

As Thomson and Yamada wrote:

"The county jail has been at capacity for seven years with 3,200 inmates annually released early due to lack of space."

So there is a clear need for the upgrade, but with the state and county hurting for money, getting state funding makes this project possible.

Again, at the time, there was zero chance that Yolo County would get a re-entry facility, so it was basically free money.

However things changed rather quickly and in May not only did Yolo County receive the $30 million, but they received notice that the state would be building a re-entry facility--built and operated by the state and funded by the state. Again--no cost to Yolo County.

What is a re-entry facility?

As it was described to me, instead of inmates being released back into the population immediately, the re-entry facility spends a year preparing them in their home county for re-entry into the public. They are given training and rehabilitation programs that enable them to transition back into their community.

As Thomson and Yamada write:

"Intensive treatment and rehabilitation programs in re-entry facilities are designed to allow a transition period to connect inmates to community services and support systems, provide evidence-based treatment, treatment of substance abuse and mental illness, and to develop a plan for a crime-free life upon release."

This is not a half-way house.

The inmates are not released at night to go back into the community. They are housed on the location for the entire period. However, unlike the prisons, they are back close to their family. So the family can visit them more frequently and start getting back into their lives. All of this is aimed at trying to help them reestablish their social networks and prevent recidivism.

Remember these are people who were going to be released back into the population anyway. Would you prefer them go through programs such as these that might give them a chance at a normal life or would you prefer them to go back to the population.

As Thomson and Yamada write:

"Currently, inmates in state prison are required by law to be released back into the community in which they lived prior to their incarceration. They are given $200 cash, a bus ticket and a 'good luck,' with little prospect of success. Today they are being released without treatment or survival skills, and 70 percent of them ultimately return to state prison. Yolo County parolees return to Yolo County.

Research shows that offenders are more likely to be successful on parole, and less likely to return to prison, when they receive intensive programming focused on their needs. Re-entry facilities are a new paradigm in California corrections, with a strong program focus on rehabilitation."

From my standpoint these are solid goals. The people who will be housed at this facility will be either from Yolo County or Solano County. It seems likely there will be some kind of partnership between the two counties.

So why the controversy?

It basically comes down to fears by communities that building such a facility would reduce property values and then land use issues.

The facility will be consistent with commercial zoned property. Now Rexroad believes that it would be best to be placed in an existing city, that means Davis, West Sacramento, or Woodland. However, Woodland has already said basically "hell no." You can imagine the response in Davis. One suggestion was the Covell Village site--I can only imagine the response to that one. And they do not think West Sacramento is the best location. Regardless of what the Board of Supervisors think, under AB 900, which is the authorizing and funding law, cities have veto power. So do not worry, Davis will not have a re-entry facility. Even the council majority is not foolish enough to try to push that one through.

Right now then, the county is looking perhaps at Dunnigan and Zamora which is unincorporated and thus under county control. The residents there are up in arms.

In July, there was a meeting in Zamora on the Re-entry facility. The Zamora Community Hall was packed with over 200 people. Complaints range from water and transportation issues--valid issues that the county will have to address. On the other hand, there were accusations of secret meetings and Brown Act violations that are not accurate.

As Rexroad pointed out at the time, the same people making accusations that this is a done deal, completed in secret, are outraged because the Board of Supervisors did not have answers to all their questions about details that will have to be addressed and worked out later.

What is ironic is that they have no problem with proposals to turn the area into a 25,000 person city, but when the re-entry facility with 300 good and well-paying jobs is proposed, people fear their property values when there is little evidence that it will have any impact on them. In fact, it might help their property values because it brings jobs to the area. These are good paying correctional jobs.

The advantage of Zamora and Dunnigan is that it is accessible to both Yolo County and Solano County. It is right on the junction of I-505 and I-5. That makes it an easy drive from Vacaville and Fairfield and not bad for Woodland, West Sacramento or Davis.

Despite protests to the contrary, the County has not made the final decision on where to locate the facility just yet. If the meetings in Zamora were any indication, it is going to be difficult to please any community. That issue aside this seems like a solid and well-intentioned initiative.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Sheriff Prieto Supports Proposition 6, Should You?

One of our Woodland blogging counterparts is the Woodland Journal, Dino and the Realist (and you think I use a pseudonym to blog under) do a very good job of following Woodland politics in addition to some Yolo County politics as well.

On Monday they had an interesting post where they show links to five different newspapers, each having the respective County Sheriff writing an editorial in support of Proposition 6. It turns out that each of these articles have a different byline but they are the exact same article.

Here is the link to our own Sheriff Ed Prieto's letter.

Sheriff Prieto writes:

"Whether California faces rosy or gloomy times, we must always make public safety the number one priority. If our streets, parks and schools aren't safe from gang violence and other crimes, then nothing else really matters."

He goes on to argue:

"Democratic members of the Budget Conference Committee have approved deep cuts to public safety programs including the Citizens Option for Public Safety, which provides for front-line law enforcement, and the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act while altogether eliminating several vital programs such as California's Methamphetamine Interdiction Program and the Small and Rural County Sheriffs Grant Program. Combined with a proposed corrections package that puts some offenders back out on the streets without supervision, these cuts will significantly exacerbate the ability of law enforcement to provide essential public safety services. These programs are critical in preventing our most at-risk youths from joining gangs, getting involved in drugs, and entering a lifetime of crime."

What else does this law do according to Sheriff Prieto:

"In addition to protecting important gang prevention and intervention funding, this initiative prohibits bail to illegal aliens who are charged with violent or gang crimes; it creates tougher punishment for gang crimes, drive-by shootings, methamphetamine distribution and victim intimidation; it helps victims who have been intimidated by gang criminals and it funds victim-witness protection programs in our communities."

Finally he gives you the link to a place where you can get more information: http://www.safeneighborhoodsact.com/ .

It all sounds good until you do a little more research on the act.

The sponsor of this bill is none other than Mike Reynolds. If his name sounds familiar, he was the author of the "Three Strikes" bill that is on the books, you know the one that has no exception if the perpetrator commits a third non-violent felony, which means people have been put into jail for a long time for fairly minor third crimes. So if you like "Three Strikes," then perhaps this is a good proposition to support. If you have concerns about it, then read on.

Some of the opposition to Proposition 6 includes the California Democratic Party, the California Professional Firefighters, the California Labor Federation, former Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks, the California Teachers Association, California National Organization for Women, the Los Angeles City Council, the League of Women Voters, California Church IMPACT and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.

You might be asking why groups like teachers and women's groups are in opposition to a law enforcement bill. Not to mention labor groups.

There are two main reasons for this type of opposition.

First, opponents claim that it "divert(s) billions from California's schools, hospitals and childcare centers. By funding failed prison and policing policies, it would deepen the state's ongoing budget crisis."

It's a simple budget matter. If you have a finite pie of government spending and you give money to prisons and law enforcement, you have to take it from schools and health care.

Hence opponents cite this information:

"Half of Californians are in favor of cutting prison spending. only 3.6% of Californians are in favor of cutting health care funds and 5% in favor of cutting school funding. Proposition 6 will increase funding to prisons and cut funding to health care and schools."

From a budget standpoint it seems that this might not be a good time to cut money to health care and schools while funding more prisons.

Other arguments against this bill focus on the specifics of the bill and it seems to me that these specifics are probably subject to debate by reasonable people.

For instance, it forces youth convicted of any "gang-related" felony to be incarcerated as an adult rather than tried in juvenile court and housed in a youth prison.

It forces recipients of public housing subsidies to submit to annual criminal background checks--this has an obvious bent toward what is happening in Antioch. It would then make individuals with recent criminal convictions ineligible for subsidies. Worse yet it criminalizes people on the lower end of the socio-economic scale.

According to the website for opponents of Prop 6, it:

"Target(s) undocumented immigrants by denying bail to those charged with violent or gang-related crimes and requiring local sheriffs to inform Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of the arrest and charges of people who are undocumented."

There are concerns that individuals who are listed in gang databases but who are actually affiliated with gangs could be falsely prosecuted under this provision. (Here's the source on that point).

For me, it seems like this imposes a lot of new rules on the criminal justice system that need to be clearly thought out in terms of their consequences. Voters will often vote for these measures because they want to be tough on crime. This one has a chance to fail because of the economic issues, but frankly some of the provisions could have startlingly unintended consequences.

It seems that the Sheriff's want the additional resources and I cannot blame them for that. But if it comes at the expense of beleaguered schools, it seems to me that we will just be feeding into the problem of law enforcement in the future by taking money from present education.

So for that reason alone, I am voting against it. And I am alarmed at a number of the provisions in the law. I am saddened to see the Sheriff supporting such a measure just to get additional funding.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Vanguard Report: Re-Examining Davis Police Overtime

Last week, the Vanguard ran a story on Davis' 100K and it included data on employee overtime salaries.

source: city of Davis Finance Department

As you can see on the chart, breaking down overtime by Division, the Fire Department has the vast majority of the overtime with $1 million of the $1.93 million total. And public safety accounts for $1.68 million of that total or roughly 87 percent.

According to a tip last week, we learned of a an "extra duty" program that is sometimes given to police officers in their time off. For instance it could be for various groups event who contract with the city, it could be for patrolling apartment complexes for four hours at a time when they have had problems with parties. Some officers like to pick up the extra work, some do not.

The groups who request the extra duty officer get sent an invoice and the officer gets paid time and a half. The city accounts for this under program number 5619--everything listed under 5619 is being paid by sources other than city money.

It turns out, roughly $70,000 of that $627,000 in overtime is not paid for by the city but rather by these private groups.

Of the officers on our 100K of Davis list, the following officers received 5619 money:

Douglas Bates received $22,338.36 of his $56,959.39 OT from 5619
Glen Glasgow received $1,612.86 of $21,487.22 OT from 5619
Darren Pytel received all of his $1426.12 OT from 5619
Paul Doroshov received $734.57 of his $20,765.48 OT from 5619
Scott Smith received $14,426 of his $37,333.13 OT from 5619

For the full listing of all 5619 expenditures, please click here.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Language of Argument for Charter City Ballot Initiative Sparks Disagreement Amongst Supporters

In mid July, the Davis City Council by a 4-1 margin, voted to put a Charter Proposal on the November Ballot. The Vanguard has learned that Councilmember Sue Greenwald has decided not to sign the ballot argument in favor of the measure out of concerns for the accuracy of the language.

The language in question is:

"There are no additional taxes involved in becoming a charter city, nor does it increase the city’s ability to raise or impose taxes in the future."

According to Councilmember Greenwald she did not sign the ballot statement because in her view, the phrase was not accurate.

The concern here is that under a charter, a city can impose a property transfer tax which would impose a tax any time an individual moved from one home to another.

Under general law status, a city cannot invoke a property transfer tax. So the first step a city must take is to adopt a charter city. Becoming a charter city therefore removes a major hurdle towards imposing the tax.

On the other hand, neither City Manager Bill Emlen nor City Attorney Harriet Steiner agree with this assessment. As Bill Emlen pointed out to the Vanguard via a phone conversation, even if the Charter passes, the only way to impose a property transfer tax is to amend the charter by a vote of the people of Davis. That is a significant hurdle and similar to the hurdle that it would require under Prop. 218 standards for other types of taxes.

In City Attorney Harriet Steiner's "Impartial Analysis of Measure N" she argued that Davis would "remain subject to all State Constitutional limitations."

These include:

"... those on taxation and property related fees, such as Propositions 13 and 218. No new taxes could be imposed without voter approval."

For those concerned about taxation, this is a key point that is formalized by the City Attorney putting it into writing. It therefore appears that by-and-large the ballot language is largely correct--for most practical purposes it does not increase the city's ability to either raise or impose taxes in the future. It may give the city an ability to have additional means by which to raise taxes, which is I think what Sue Greenwald's point is. However, even those additional means by which to tax are still subject to voter approval--this is the current process by which taxes can be increased now.

Councilmember Stephen Souza who signed the document along with Mayor Ruth Asmundson, Councilmember Lamar Heystek, and former Mayor Jerry Adler, said that he and co-signers of the argument "stand by the truthfulness of the Argument for Measure N."

While I understand the point that Councilmember Sue Greenwald makes--becoming a charter makes it possible to have a property transfer tax--I think that the argument's language is accurate. If this charter passes, it will be no easier to raise or impose taxes under a charter than it is now. The voters of Davis will still make the final determination on taxation although they may have more options to choose from in terms of the means by which taxation can be imposed.

I have not decided whether I will support or oppose this charter. I still believe I have a good deal to learn about the charter before I can make an informed decision. However, from what I have read and from those I have spoken with in the last few days, I do not believe the issue of taxation should be a determination as to whether or not people support the charter. Everything I have found indicates that the protections in place under a General Law City will remain under the proposed Charter.

That said, I do agree with Councilmember Greenwald that a property transfer tax is unfair as it puts the tax burden on those who either wish to upgrade to their "dream home" or who wish to downsize to a smaller more affordable home, perhaps later in their lives. There it puts a burden on younger families looking to get a better home and older citizens who are looking for a smaller and more manageable home as they enjoy their later years. This does not seem to be an equitable distribution of the tax burden.

Moreover, I am concerned about the burden being placed on citizens to live in Davis with the growing pressures of the city's budget. The current salary structure and increase in budgetary allocation to upper management salaries is putting a strain on city resources. It is currently forcing the city to forestall critical repairs to roads and other infrastructure in order to balance the budget. We are going to have to pay for this imbalance either through less services, more taxes, or greater pressures to continue to develop. This does not even include the current discussion on water and the possible large increases to water rates that residents may have to face. For those worried about the cost of homes pricing people out of this community, the high taxes and high utility rates at the very least will exacerbate that trend.

However, from the perspective of this initiative on the ballot, it does not appear to change the protections that residents have against future taxes.

The question before us should examine the reasons why such a change should be necessary. Councilmember Don Saylor has been the only consistent dissenter on council on this issue. He has repeatedly questioned whether there was a reason that we need to do this right now and has termed it "a solution in search of a problem."

Proponents have pressed for these changes out of a desire to see a Choice Voting system be implemented. Choice Voting requires the city adopt a Charter in order for it to be legal to implement. The question I think people need to look into is what the possible unintended consequences of a Charter City might be and then whether those potential consequences are ultimately outweighed by the benefits of a possible Choice Voting system.

These questions will not be resolved today, however at this point it appears that tax concerns should not be a reason to oppose a Charter City initiative and Measure N.

• To read the full Argument in favor of Measure N please click here [note: there was no argument submitted against Measure N nor is there a rebuttal to the Argument for Measure N]

• To read the City Attorney's "Impartial Analysis of Measure" please click here.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Limiting Public Comment and Free Speech Considerations

There has been an interesting debate both on the editorial pages of the Davis Enterprise and in the community itself with regards to some of the new regulations that Mayor Ruth Asmundson has imposed both on the length of council comment and more explosively it seems on the length of public comment.

Her decision to limit the public comment period to fifteen minutes has drawn heavy criticism. Unfortunately, the rhetoric has been couched in grandiose terms such as freedom of speech and the Brown Act.

While freedom of speech is ostensibly government by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it has always effectively been subject to time and place restrictions. Public meetings could not function with complete freedom of speech which would allow anyone to talk at any time. The need for order is balanced against the right of the public to have access to their local government. Thus enters the Ralph M. Brown Act in California which governs access to local government bodies.

Section 54954.3 governs the right of the public speak. Subsection (a) reads:

"Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2."

However even in this case, the right to speak is not an unlimited one.

Subsection (b) allows the legislative body to adopt:

"reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker."

Finally subsection (c) essentially protects the right to public criticism of policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, but not beyond the current protection offered by the law. In other words, the Brown Act does not protect individuals from slander and other prohibitions on speech, but it does in general prevent the agency from shutting down dissent.

In the debate that we are dealing with, subsection (b) is the one that is applicable. It is here that we find that the actions of the Mayor are in fact legal under the Brown Act. "Reasonable" is always a judgment call and it also appears that her body could probably overrule her on policy, but obviously given her majority status, that is not going to happen.

That said, as with so many other provisions for open government in California, I believe that the Brown Act provides the minimum standard under which an agency should operate, not the maximum standard.

An active and engaged public is vital to this community. By limiting public comment, we begin the limit the chances for the public to participate in their own government and this I think will likely produce unwanted and undesirable consequences.

As has been pointed out before by members of the public and members on the council alike, the number of times in the last two years that the public consumed more than 15 minutes at a council meeting one could count on one hand. And it always surrounded an issue of great controversy and therefore of great import. On those occasions, what is the harm of the body of representatives to the public to listen to public input?

There is nothing more frustrating, as we have seen in the past, for the public to come to a meeting, speak on an issue for a long period of time, only to watch as the councilmembers make their comments from prepared statements as though the public's comments have no impact whatsoever on the council's final decision. Nothing is more frustrating than that except perhaps the public not even being able to fully speak out on the issue.

At the July 22, 2008 city council meeting, a number of members of the public spoke out against the new policy.

Jean Jackson, a prominent member of the public was especially eloquent:

"Your new policy of only having fifteen minutes of public comment before the meeting starts--it's not Democratic. It shuts down opposition. It shuts down good ideas, I get inspired by listening to public comment from people. It shows lack of flexibility and you are doing a great disservice to the citizens who want to participate in government and their sense of empowerment. You wonder why people don't sign up to be on commissions, well when you give them fifteen minutes public comment for all the issues, it really shows that you are not interested in what people have to say. I really urge you to get the citizens involved and not belittle us by allowing only fifteen minutes of public comment."

However in the Enterprise, members of the public such as Sheryl Patterson defended the policy. Ms. Patterson is correct that the council not violating the Brown Act (and likely not the American with Disabilities Act) with their policy. However, she also went too far in defending the policy.

She argued for instance:

"The purpose of a council meeting is to address items on the agenda."

The Brown Act actually specifically provides for the public to address items that are not on the agenda provided that the council is proscribed from taking action on those items.

Her final statement, I think misses the point as well:

"Just get to the meeting early and sit by the podium if you need to speak first. It's not that hard to be heard."

Under normal conditions, that is correct, it is not difficult to speak as a member of the public. But if a large number of people have decided to speak on a given subject that could become a bit tricky. The concern is the point about cutting off debate after 15 minutes--something that most weeks is not going to be an issue. But on those weeks that it is, what does Ms. Patterson suggest for those meetings to those individuals who did not get a chance to be heard?

This weekend, Kevin Klein in a letter to the Davis Enterprise weighed in on the issue and argued that free speech does exist at meetings.

Mr. Klein actually straddles the fence on this issue suggesting:

"I would think a better solution would be for City Council to assess the length of each meeting, and if need be, spilt public comment to two parts (before and during agenda items); and then asking those waiting to give public comment if they could wait until later in the evening. "

However he also offers a note of caution for the council:

"The one caution I would give to the council, though, is to not set public comment at the end of their meeting (which is almost always after 11 p.m.). To do so would be an act of denying citizens reasonable access to public comment otherwise required by the Brown Act."

That of course leads one to wonder exactly what the council would gain by splitting public comment. If the idea is to move the agenda forward more quickly, it seems to me that splitting the public comment section does not aid in that. It is better to allow the public to speak up front and then move on to scheduled council business.

This is an issue that is not likely to go away in the near future. The council has the authority under the Brown act to limit public comment in this manner. The question before all of us is really whether the council should in this manner and whether that really furthers our goals in the name of expediency.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

New York Times Covers Former Davis Police Chief

Even if the article in Sunday's New York Times were not about our old friend, former Davis Police Chief Jim Hyde it would be pretty fascinating.

That is because in a lot of ways there is tremendous change going on in American society, equivalent perhaps to the changes that occurred in the 20th century when large numbers of African-Americans fled from the south to northern cities which in turn spawned a flight of white city dwellars to the suburbs. Now the rising cost of urban housing is causing almost a reverse migration with many whites moving back to the cities and many African-Americans fleeing to the more affordable suburbs aided at times by programs like the Section 8 federal housing program.

Writes the New York Times:

"Under the Section 8 federal housing voucher program, thousands of poor, urban and often African-American residents have left hardscrabble neighborhoods in the nation’s largest cities and resettled in the suburbs.

Law enforcement experts and housing researchers argue that rising crime rates follow Section 8 recipients to their new homes, while other experts discount any direct link. But there is little doubt that cultural shock waves have followed the migration. Social and racial tensions between newcomers and their neighbors have increased, forcing suburban communities like Antioch to re-evaluate their civic identities along with their methods of dealing with the new residents."

In addition to these forces, the foreclosure crisis plays a role as well:

"The foreclosure crisis gnawing away at overbuilt suburbs has accelerated that migration, and the problems. Antioch is one of many suburbs in the midst of a full-blown mortgage meltdown that has seen property owners seeking out low-income renters to fill vacant homes."

Like I said, this would be an interesting story even without the presence of the formerly polarizing police chief of Davis in the story. The issue of "overbuilt suburbs" could probably keep us going for a week with talks about new waves in smart development and questions about what will happen to suburbs as towns struggle to redevelop their cores in hopes of cutting down on the need to consume gasoline in commutes.

For all the talk about racial reconciliation, it appears that the presence of African-Americans in a town like Antioch is just as explosive today as the notion of forced busing and integration was in the 1970s. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

On the front lines of these kinds of cultural struggles is often the face of law enforcement and it is here where our old friend rears his head once again and plants himself firmly in the conscience this time not just of Davis but apparently the entire nation.

The action filed as Antioch last month claims discrimination, intimidation, and illegal property searches. Police allegedly routinely questioned and harassed Section 8 residents about their housing status, writing letters to the county's housing authority recommending termination of subsidies.

According to the Times article:

"A December 2007 study of Antioch police records by Public Advocates, a law firm in San Francisco, counted 67 investigations of black households, compared with 59 of white families; black households, it found, are four times as likely to be searched based on noncriminal complaints and to be contacted by the police in the first place."

Like any profiling claim, the contentions are difficult to sustain even with such statistics--for all statistics can be a matter of coincidence as well as intent.

For their part, Chief Jim Hyde of the Antioch Police Department denies these claims.

But here is a very telling statement in the New York Times article:

"Chief Hyde also said that the local housing authority was not meeting its obligation to screen tenants properly, and that as his department focused on nuisance issues, the police had become a de facto enforcement arm of the federal government."

The question that immediately jumps to my mind is whether this an appropriate role for the police department to play. I understand the frustration that the police may have if the federal government is being negligent in its duties to enforce its own laws, but at the same time, if the police have gone beyond their own charge, they invite these sorts of complaints and law suits.

The Times article tells a number of stories about white residents complaining about the problems that the Section 8 housing has brought.

There is clear conflict within these stories on the one hand fear and on the other hand a recognition that there is a racial component to that fear and wondering if that is an appropriate response.

Laura Reynolds, 36, an emergency room nurse, said that she often came home to her Country Hills development tract after working a late-shift to find young black teenagers strolling through her neighborhood.

“I know it sounds horrible, but they’re scary. I’m sorry,” said Ms. Reynolds, who like her two friends said she was conflicted about her newfound fear of black youths. “Sometimes I question myself, and I think, Would I feel this way if they were Mexican or white?”

Is this is a legitimate fear and concern or is it being overblown by cultural and racial stereotypes? The problem that I fear is that some are playing on the legitimate fears of residents to their own political advantage. This is far from a new phenomena.

Brad Seligman is a lawyer with a nonprofit civil rights advocacy group based in San Francisco, the Impact Fund. They are one of the groups along with the ACLU, Public Advocates, and the NAACP that have accused the city's police department of racial profiling.

Mr. Seligman is quoted in the New York Times saying:

“Instead of driving while black, it’s renting while black.”

The New York Times talks about an African-American couple, Thomas and Karen Coleman, two of the plaintiffs.

In June 2007, a neighbor told the police that Mr. Coleman had threatened him. Officers from the police community action team visited the house and demanded to be allowed in.

“I cracked the door open, but they pushed me out of the way,” Ms. Coleman said.

The officers searched the house even though they did not have a warrant, said the Colemans, who are now part of the class-action suit against the department. The police questioned Mr. Coleman, a parolee at the time, about his living arrangement. He explained that he and his wife were separated but in the process of reconciling. The police accused the family of violating a Section 8 rule that only listed tenants can live in a subsidized home.

After the raid, officers made repeated visits to the Coleman home and to Mr. Coleman’s job at a movie theater. They also sent a letter to the county housing department recommending that the Colemans be removed from federal housing assistance, a recommendation the authority rejected.

“They kept harassing me until I was off parole,” Mr. Coleman said.

If the account of the Colemans is accurate, we see a number of problems with not only the police's conduct, but their role in this process.

First, even as a parolee, police cannot enter a person's residence without a warrant and without permission to enter.

Second, the police accused the family of violating a Section 8 rule but the family's situation was obviously more complicated than that. Frankly it is not the police's authority to enforce Section 8 rules which are federal. Moreover, by inserting themselves into the process they probably overstepped their boundaries.

Unexplained in this story is the fact that obviously there was no evidence that Mr. Coleman threatened anyone, otherwise they could have simply arrested him and revoked his parole.

Even if the authorities in Antioch technically acted appropriate here, a questionable contention at best, their insertion into this process is part of the problem. Instead of calming the situation down, they seem to be throwing fuel on the fire.

This is part of the problem I had with the Police Chief while he was in Davis. Two years ago, I obtained public records that show that Chief Hyde in response to citizen complaints about police conduct and in response to the HRC pressing the issue, instead of diffusing the situation, launched a PR campaign against the HRC from the police station. Emails show efforts by the police chief to drum up opposition to the HRC. Emails show derogatory statements made by the police chief to the HRC, its chair, and others in this community. While the Chief perhaps had every right to mobilize a counter response to the HRC's complaints, the method in which it was undertaken was polarizing and increased the heat and the tensions.

Moreover the police chief chose to finally take a new position in Antioch, a move he had been looking to make for some time, long before disagreements with the HRC arose. He chose that opportunity to throw the final fuel to the fire, further inciting tensions as he left the scene and forced those who stayed in Davis to clean up his mess including a number of lawsuits that the city currently faces from actions, which took place under his command.

These patterns seem to be reemerging in Antioch. Thus far, it seems that the police chief has the backing of the Antioch Mayor and City Council who also gave him a raise this month. The next question will be how much teeth this lawsuit has and whether the findings by the court, which figures to be a long and drawn out process, will vindicate or indict his current practices.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Needle-Exchange Program--Needed to Be Mended But Not Ended

This past week, the County Board of Supervisors on a somewhat rare party-line vote, decided to continue the needle exchange program that will cost the Yolo County taxpayers $100,000 per year.

This despite tangible evidence of problems with the program.

One of the biggest problems with the program at this point has to do with the number of unaccounted for needles.

There were 61,752 needles that were passed out but only 50,499 needles that were turned back in. That leaves 11,253 unaccounted for needles. Needles that are reportedly showing up in parks and other areas where children frequent.

Supervisor Matt Rexroad, a strong opponent of the program found it unacceptable that that many needles are unaccounted for.

"That seems like a ridiculously high number."

Supervisor Rexroad also said as he has previously that he thinks the money could better be spent elsewhere.

Back on July 2, 2008 the Vanguard interviewed Matt Rexroad but also program administrator Rachel Anderson from SANE (Safer Alternatives Through Networking and Education).

• Click here to listen to that show

Rachel Anderson did a good job of laying out why it needle exchange is a very important and helpful program. One thing that it does is help people who would otherwise have little contact with social services get into contact with people who can help them in a setting where they can get help rather than face punishment for their drug problem. Studies have shown that not only do needle exchange programs help to reduce the spread of blood-borne diseases like HIV and hepatitis, but it also helps to reduce the drug use.

There is always a fear that somehow a needle exchange program might encourage people to use drugs, but that seems rather farfetched. People are not likely to suddenly start using IV drugs because clean needles are available.

Given the cost of health care and the cost to the county services to care for people with these kinds of chronic diseases, if the $100,000 program even reduces the number of infections by one, it almost pays for itself.

So while I am sympathetic to Matt Rexroad's argument that he poses on the radio show that it could be better used for children's health care, I think this is still a worthwhile program to explore.

My concern however is that it is obviously listening to the testimony and reading articles that the program has administration problems. The number of unaccounted for needles is in my opinion completely unacceptable.

So what does the 3-2 majority do to tighten up the administration of this program? Not a darn thing! It does nothing.

I am a liberal who supports these kinds of programs but they darn well better work. And if they are not working right, make them work. To often the problem with government is that those who support these programs are afraid to admit when there are problems and those who understand that there are problems with the program just want to kill the program. There is thus no one invested in making the program work.

Part of the problem that some have told with this program is that everyone knew it would be a hot buttoned issue and so there was a protection mechanism from the administration of the program who tried to keep any problems at the lowest possible level in order to prevent what has now happened. The problem is that that approach clearly did not fix the problem and the program ended up in the spotlight.

Instead of trying to fix the program, everyone either tried to cover up the problems or use the problems to destroy the program.

That still does not explain or justify why the Board of Supervisors now apparently fully briefed on some of the problems with the program, made no effort whatsoever to fix the problem.

Again, I fully support the program in concept, but I remain baffled that those in charge have not made efforts to make it work better.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting