Drastic Measures and Grandiose Gestures by the School District

The headlines that came out of Thursday's school board meeting were dramatic with the Superintendent suggesting that the top four administrators would take double the pay cut that they were asking teachers to take in order to send the message that they were serious about the school budget crisis. Beneath those sensational headlines is a truth that is every bit as bleak but perhaps not quite as sexy.

The truth is somewhere in between here. The first factor that people need to understand is that in some ways what was discussed on Thursday night was the choice of the school board. They were presented options the previous week and could have chosen to self-qualify.

Self-qualification is a complicated process that was explained on the Vanguard radio show fairly well on Wednesday night. But in short, given the budget crisis, the district could have taken the latest assumptions from the governor's budget, said that they would deal with 2010-11 in due time, and cal it a budget.

The problem as Cathy Haskell current DTA President and Ingrid Salim, incoming DTA President explained on the radio show is that the board was told last year that self-qualification would be a red flag to the county that there were fiscal problems. That is because a large extent of the district's fiscal problems last year were in-house and local. That is not the case this year. There are estimates that 70% of the state will self-qualify. The reason for self-qualification is that the first two years of the budget would be balanced but the third year, 2010-11, would have an on-paper deficit that would need to be addressed. In a state budget crisis year, this is not the alarm bell that it would have been last year.

Nevertheless the board was not comfortable with self-qualification and instead are looking for the three year balanced budget. The result is additional pain of trying to anticipate three years out without even hard numbers for this year's budget. And they must do it by March 15.

As Sheila Allen put it on Thursday:

"It's just so frustrating that we have deadlines that we have to meet and other elected officials are not. So we're working with 'fiction' and we're messing with real people's lives when it's based on fiction, it's very frustrating."

In addition to the school board making the situation harder, Thursday's budget also assumed no flexibility. This is probably a wise decision at some level. The CTA has launched a veritable battle against any flexibility in CSR (Class Size Reduction) requirements. Moreover, they have opposed categorical flexibility as well. Still, it appears likely there would be some flexibility.

As we walk quickly through the numbers, all of this suggests that the grand gesture (largely symbolic) made by the top four might actually be a worst case scenario rather than the operating assumption that was suggested in the headlines on Friday.



The budget challenge as laid out by Bruce Colby is how we reduce the cost of delivering our programs without reduce the level of the programs we provide. Moreover, the district has a structural deficit, it is basically eating at least $1 million in reserve each year by these budget assumptions. It is doing that in order to both maintain our programs and avoid the painful layoffs that were proposed last year.



In short, what the district needs to do is to reduce on-going expenditures by $4.9 million or more over the next two years to maintain fiscal solvency. That is $3.3 million in 2009-10 and an additional $1.6 million in 2010-11. And 2010-11 is probably on the low side unless the economy and budget forecast improves. Even with that, the district will continue to have a structural deficit of $1 million which will need to be addressed by 2011-12.

As Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby said:

"At some point we will run out of reserves and we will have to close the gap for the last million dollars."

The district examined the salary breakdown for 2009-10 by bargaining unit. Their proposed cuts are roughly proportional cuts across the three classifications ranging from 3.68% among classified (support staff), 3.88% among certificated (teachers) and 4.15% among unrepresented (management and administrators).

Under this scenario they are taking out three counselors, they think they can find 200,000 by shifting around unused parcel tax money, but $910,000 is coming from increasing the student to teacher ratio for grades 4-12 which are not governed by CSR requirements. That means losing teachings, perhaps as many as 14. Some of that could be obtained through attrition--retirements and transfers.

However, and here is where the real painful decisions come in. Those cuts still leave the district one million dollars short.

So the bottom column on the grid shows the possibilities for accomplishing that savings. One is what was talked about last week, would be federal stimulus package dollars. It is possible the district will get $2.7 million, but we would have to look more closely at the Senate's version. There is also a possibility that the Davis Schools Foundation will be able to raise some of that money, but these days are a bit tougher for raising money than a year ago.

On the other side of the ledger are flexibilities that could be granted by the legislature. The adult education program has a $200,000 that is categorical money, which means that the district could be allowed to use it for general fund if they get flexibility on that. There is an additional $1.1 million in categorical money that could be used if granted by the legislature. And then there is about $1 million in CSR that could be used if they raise the ratio of students to teachers from 20 to 22. However, as mentioned that is going to be a political fight and the DTA seems to believe that there are other ways to get that money.

Now here is finally where we get to the sexy headlines which are not so sexy. If all else fails, one possibility is that the teachers and in fact all employees take a 2.5% pay reduction. That would free up $1.26 million that would cover that million hole.

It is here that we see the offer from the top four administrators coming into play.

Superintendent James Hammond:

"If there were to be any type of salary reduction for employees, that we would double whatever that salary reduction would be. So if we are looking at a 2.5% reduction to every employee in the district, then we the four of us would incur a 5% reduction for the 09-10 school year in order to contribute to our ability to prevent layoffs."

And let us not take away from this gesture. Because it is important to know that the administration is willing to share the pain, particularly after we have been so critical of Bruce Colby taking a pay increase of roughly 5% in these budget times. He is willing to give that back should it be needed.

As Board President told the Enterprise:

"They've being leaders."

But clearly this is the worst case scenario and the last resort. However, it does appear that the administration got the message from the community that has complained about administrative raises during a year when the district was contemplating layoffs and teachers were not getting raises.

The bottom line here is that while that gesture is appreciated a lot has to go wrong for it to be implemented.



However, we are not done. The cuts in 2010-11 under current assumptions amount to $1.65 million. Remember however those are on top of the cuts that would be implemented for 09-10.

At this point we are really getting into pure personnel unless the district gets stimulus money, gifts, or categorical flexibility. Because the district is looking for a three-year balanced budget, they are looking at 8 teacher layoffs for $520,000 in savings, 12 secretarial layoffs for another half million, and the loss of nearly three site administrators for $295,000. The latter represents a 6.26% cut in funding for the unrepresented bargaining unit, compared to 4.59% for classified, and 1.59% for certificated.

Those cuts however still leave the district nearly $300,000 short of balance.

In short, the district is making a lot of tough decisions right now that they really might not have to make depending on how the budget pans out. Much of this is due to the board's apprehension to do a self-qualification and work toward a balance for 2010-11 with more realistic assumptions.

There are going to be teacher's noticed. That is now unavoidable. It will not be the 100 or so that were noticed last year. But as the DTA representatives said on Wednesday, that took a huge emotional and psychological toll.

As Superintendent Hammond put it:

"There could be overnoticing going on but we do not know what the rules of flexibility are going to be."

As Board President Gina Daleiden put it:

"No one would do this unless we were at the very last resort."

I understand some of the rationale for doing it this way, but I'm not fully convinced it is the last resort. Given the state budget picture, a self-qualification does not seem to put the district in the kind of risk they would have been in last year, they need to trust their Superintendent and Chief Budget Officer who just last week recommended the self-qualification route to avoid these kinds of drastic cuts that may not have to be implemented. I understand the frustration that Board Member Sheila Allen expressed at the state budget process, the school districts are one of many victims of that inaction. But I am not convinced this was the only way to do this based on the other alternatives out there.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

General Plan Updating Process Begins

On Tuesday night, the Davis City Council will start take steps towards developing a plan of attack for the next General Plan Update. According to the staff report:

A General Plan update would potentially address all of the Council goal categories of: Infrastructure; Fiscal stability; Downtown Davis; Housing; Sustainability; Safety and Health; Organizational Strength; Civic Engagement; and Long-Term Visioning.

In particular, a General Plan update would address the Long-Term Visioning goal: “Prepare for the lasting success and well-being of the Davis community by engaging in long-term visioning.”

The city is looking at a process that would initiate an update through 2035 but could include a long range vision for Davis perhaps up until 2050. The recent housing element process has focused on housing strategies in isolation from other long range community issues.

Other issues that city staff wants to address include:

• Sustainability and AB 32 requirements.
• Economic and business related sustainability.
• Community and resident health.
• A general study of senior needs including housing, transportation, recreation and
social services.
• Ultimate urban growth and ag preservation boundaries.
• Open space / greenways system.
• Growth and balance of housing, employment, retail and services.
• Vision for the downtown and its development intensity.
• Multi-property planning on the edges of the City where coordinated planning would better address issues that may cross parcel boundaries.
• Fiscal impacts of alternatives.
• Planning for the January 2012 – June 2019 Housing Element planning period and
RHNA.
• Explore possible new locations for city and DJUSD corporation yards and the PG&E service center.

One of the challenges the city faces right now is the cost to the project including EIR costs. According to the staff report, costs range from $1 million to $4 million with a typical cost from between $1.5 million to $2.5 million. With a time frame ranging from two years to upwards of five years.

"Staff recommends that the Council determine what kind of a General Plan update is wanted / needed while being sensitive to the difficult budget conditions the City faces, as well as other priorities. After a “first cut” at deciding what kind of General Plan update, staff can return with more information and options for funding the update.

Concerns with City fiscal and budget conditions have evolved since the original Steering Committee recommendation and the Council direction to initiate a “truly comprehensive General Plan update…to address a long range community vision to year 2040 or 2050…with a broad community engagement program”."

The report also accesses the strengths and weaknesses of the current general plan.

The strengths include the fact that it is comprehensive, addresses and contains "smart growth principles," and was citizen based.

However, it also criticizes the previous report as long and unfocused.

"The lengthy document of almost 400 pages and 1,000 goals, policies and standards is difficult to use and focus on overall themes, key issues and trade-offs. The connections between the plan’s general visions and principles and more specific implementing actions are not always clear. Policies related to sustainability are not well coordinated."

Moreover,

"Not clear in its guidance of how the community should evolve in the long term, particularly in terms of residential and non-residential growth."

In particular,

"The 1% growth cap resolution is a helpful tool through January 2010, but does not a provide a quantitative basis for 20 to 25 years because the resolution was based on a housing needs analysis through year 2015 only. The plan provides the framework for promoting infill but does not address appropriate sites and the land use map..."

Furthermore:

"Does not provide for reliable projections for financial and infrastructure planning."

There are three other criticisms. First:

"Individual development proposals and policy. Preferably, individual projects would not drive policy.

Second:

"Coordination with UC Davis plans. The City and UC Davis continue to be challenged to proactively address short and long term mutual interests and needs."

Third:

"New State requirements for general plans. New legislative requirements in general plans for the topics of climate impacts, water supply, environmental justice, and tribal contacts should be checked and incorporated as necessary."

The staff report then elicits a number of comments from council in terms of goals, what the updated plan should contain, what the process should look like.

On thing that might be interesting is for citizens to use the comment section of this article to express some of their goals and concerns about what they would like to see included in the next general plan. Issues such as sustainability, climate change, senior needs, urban growth boundaries, and sustainable economy ought to be considered. One of the main issues that needs to be address is what this community should look like in 2035. How do you want to see Davis change? What would you like to see remain the same?

Finally there is the issue with Measure J. The council had deferred discussion of Measure J until after the election. However, it still really has not addressed it. Are there three votes to keep the measure as it is currently written when it goes before the voters? When will that be addressed?

The staff report contains some other thoughts on Measure J. For instance, whether the General Plan update to go to a Measure J vote if it involves Measure J sites. Whether the entire General Plan package should go to a Measure J vote.

"One option for the Measure J renewal is to do a limited extension until the update is ready for a Measure J vote, and amend Measure J so that if an urban land use is approved by the voters then a second Measure J vote is not necessary."

That would seem to be a rather dangerous proposition for both sides. On the one hand, it might make it difficult to pass the general plan if there are controversial projects contained within it. On the other hand, it might make it easier to pass controversial projects. And once the Measure J vote is passed for the general plan, what safeguards the project to ensure that it does not get altered significantly from passage as part of the general plan. I certain do not believe I would support such a provision.

What other issues need to be addressed here? This is the beginning of the general plan process, the citizens need to take a very proactive role in insuring that their needs, values, and goals are addressed within the framework of the general plan updating process.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Commentary: The limits of Open Government and the Council's Right to Know

A few weeks the Davis City Council was trying to decide to what extent they had the right to demand to read the Ombudsman's Investigation into the Yolo County Grand Jury report. In a lot of ways it was a strange discussion. Let us forget for a moment about the content of that report and focus only on the process at hand.

City Attorney Harriet Steiner ruled two things. First, that the city manager had the right to determine whether or not the council could see something. Second, that if the council did view these personnel matters or a report deemed to cover a personnel matter, it could subject the city to liability. In essence, the city attorney deemed that in a city manager model, the council has no more right to view personnel records than members of the public.

Basically the city council hires the city manager. They are responsible for evaluating his performance. It was that evaluative process that led to the city manager's new contract that was approved last week in open session. However, as councilmember Sue Greenwald and Councilmember Lamar Heystek asked, how is the council supposed to evaluate the city manager, if they cannot review his work product. If they are in the dark about certain reports deemed "personnel matters," how can they determine how well the city manager has done his job?

And there is more. Implicit in the assumption by the city attorney was that viewing these documents somehow exposed the council to liability. However, there appear to be no precedents to back that up. One pervasive belief is that if the city council were able to see the full report, the firefighters union would sue the city. This is only speculation, but it has been suggested from multiple sources.

This whole discussion leads to two interesting things to ponder. First, what would have happened had a majority of the council determined they had to see the full report? And second, can and should the council change the system?

It is the second point we briefly ponder today. City Attorney Harriet Steiner upon questioning from Councilmember Greenwald did concede that the city could alter its model. It does not appear that the majority of council is interested in doing so. As I mentioned previously, right now the city manager model suggests that the council hires only the city manager and the city manager hires, evaluates, fires, promotes the rest of city staff.

However, apparently that is not the only alternative. Indeed if we look at the school district, we see a much greater role for the school board than for the city council. The school board is privvy to personnel matters and makes some of those decisions.

Implicit under those assumptions is that the elected members are not merely agents of the public, with the same rights as the public, but actually governing agents. From the standpoint of public policy, it seems problematic that the elected and publicly accountable city council members would have to take a backseat in such discussions to unelected city managers.

As we have discussed previously, the city council has the power to hire and fire the city manager, that is all. What we do not know is the extent to which the city council could use its ability to fire as leverage in this situation. The reason for that is that a majority of the council did not wish to force the issue.

This too is somewhat problematic. For it suggests a few things. First, that the power of a councilmember is extremely limited. Indeed, it has often been suggested that as a member of the public, I have much greater rights than a member of the council does. The majority has almost complete power to thwart the will of the minority in council when it comes to these kinds of issues. To an extent that we do not see in other forms of government.

A member of the council therefore cannot make demands to see documents with the power to enforce that decision.

The question is whether this needs to be changed. Should the elected members of the Davis City Council have the right to by themselves demand to see documents in order to make better decisions? Do they have any recourse when denied other than to politic to pressure the majority of the council or sue for access?

These are all questions that were brought up two weeks ago. It is our hope for the sake of transparency and accountability that this issue is not allowed to die.

---David M. Greenwald

Vanguard Radio Tonight

Tonight at 6 pm Vanguard Radio on KDRT 95.7 FM will have two representatives from the Davis Teachers Association talking about education, the district, and the budget. Joining us will be current President Cathy Haskell and President-elect Ingrid Salim.

Call in at 530.792.1648

Log on for live stream: kdrt.org

Former UC Davis Officer Claims Violation of Settlement Agreement

Documentary Evidence Suggests University Failed to Adhere to Their Terms of Agreement

On Monday the Vanguard ran a story on the lawsuit filed by former UC Davis police Officer Calvin Chang. The story has since been covered in detail in the California Aggie and mentioned briefly on the Davis Enterprise website. At this point, one of the hang ups has been that the university has not been served and thus not officially notified with the complaint. So at this point they cannot respond.

The Vanguard spoke briefly to UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza and Julia Ann Easley, Senior Public Information Representative at UC Davis News Service.

The Vanguard has now received a copy of the settlement agreement between Officer Chang and the university since in February of 2008. In that agreement, Officer Chang was to be paid by the Regents a sum of $240,000 of which $66,000 would go to his attorney.

"In exchange for the promises and warranties of CHANG as set forth below the REGENTS shall pay the total sum of $240,000 (two hundred forty thousand dollars). The $240,000 will be paid in two separate checks - one payable to Calvin Chang in the amount of $174,000 and the other check payable to James McGlamery in the amount of $66,000."

In addition to the monetary terms there were several key non-monetary provisions including the removal of identified negative documents from Calvin Chang's personnel file.

“To remove certain identified negative documents from CHANG's official personnel file and place them in a separate confidential file (''unsanitized file”) that will be maintained in the office of Campus Counsel, Steve Drown. CHANG, his attorney, and the attorney for the REGENTS will meet to cull through the official personnel file to determine which documents constitute such “negative” documents. A list of the documents that are removed from his personnel file and placed in the separate '''unsanitized file'' will be compile and attached hereto as Exhibit A.”

Moreover, for future employers, information would be limited to dates of his employment, title, and the fact that he has voluntarily resigned.

Specifically it authorizes that the regents will keep the "currently pending laundry-room Internal Affairs investigation open as "not completed." The University will expunge from Officer Chang's personnel file all letters or reprimand older than six months.

Here is the full listing of the items specifically agreed upon by both parties to be removed:




The complaint alleges a breach of contract stemming from the university not adhering to the terms of this agreement.

According to the complaint:

“A fundamental obligation of the settlement was to also preserve Plaintiff's peace officer career and coveted public safety retirement. As such, the settlement imposed a fundamental and material obligation on Regents as established by paragraph 2 of the settlement, that certain negative documents, that were the product of discrimination, be expunged or removed from his personnel file, and otherwise to comply with his rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Govt. Code § 3300 et seq., hereinafter "POBR").”

It continues:

Specifically, pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Spicuzza met with Plaintiff and counsel in open session, to review and agree on the removal of documents according to the obligations stated above as outlined in paragraph 2 and "Exhibit A" of the settlement. As a result of this obligation, pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the parties generated "Exhibit A," that delineated the documents to be placed in or removed from Plaintiff's personnel files.

This allegedly did not happen.

“However, defendant Regents unlawfully placed into Plaintiff's personnel file, adverse documents that negated the purpose and effect of the terms of the agreement. These documents have irreparably harmed Plaintiff's ability to successfully obtain other employment as a peace officer and have effectively denied him the ability to continue in his career.”

Instead the complaint alleges that a number of items were placed into Mr. Chang’s personnel file.

“Regents placed into and failed to remove from Plaintiff's police department personnel file, a letter dated January 18, 2008, authored by Spicuzza that placed Plaintiff on "administrative leave."

Regents also placed into and failed to remove from Plaintiff's police department personnel file two additional letters referring to and revealing the "Settlement" and to his "resignation."

Regents also placed over one hundred pages of negative documents into Plaintiff's peace officer personnel file located at the Office of Campus Counsel. Said documents consist of the most inflammatory and derogatory material, false allegations against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's complaints against other peace officers, as contained in the full bound unredacted Seyfarth Shaw workplace investigation report.

Regents also placed into and failed to remove from Plaintiff's peace officer personnel file, two versions of a Kilday & Kilduff report adverse to Plaintiff's interests - regarding internal affairs investigations that Regents launched against Plaintiff immediately after Plaintiff was reinstated in 2004. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that said documents include, a yet to be fully disclosed, unwarranted internal affairs investigation against him by Regents in 2003 for alleged "insubordination" that consisted of "talking about his discrimination complaint."

According to the complaint, Officer Chang only became aware of these breaches after he was denied an employment position by several law enforcement agencies including the city of Davis. Recall that according to the settlement agreement, the university had very specific provisions about how requests for information were to be treated and what information they were to give out.



Instead according to the complaint:

“On July 22,2008, Campus Counsel Steve Drown told Plaintiff that REGENTS showed to the background investigator the above breaching documents, including the Seyfarth Shaw report as well as two versions of the Kilday Kilduff reports. Drown declined Plaintiff's request to read the documents, and declined to show Plaintiff the documents that were contained in his peace officer personnel file.

Plaintiff informed Drown that the documents were not to be in his personnel file, were in violation of the settlement, and that he requested to read them, that REGENTS must remove them, and allow him to provide a response to them after he has read them.”

According to the settlement agreement, the “laundry-room” investigation would be classified as open and “not completed.”



In fact, the complaint alleges that agreement was entered in based on fraudulent information and even then the defendants did not adhere to those provisions.

“As a direct and material obligation of the Settlement, Regents represented that the Laundry Room IA was still pending, had not been concluded, and would be maintained indefinitely as an "open investigation."

On or about February 4, 2008, in the presence of counsel for Regents, Spicuzza, a peace officer, verbally stated to Plaintiff that the Laundry Room IA had no finding, and further represented to Plaintiff that Regents would never disclose the existence or any information regarding the investigation to any party, including to any prospective employer - because it was an "open investigation." This obligation was material and conclusive in that the disclosure of the existence and the "open status" of an IA would substantially foreclose on the ability of a peace officer to obtain other police employment with a prospective employer.

In addition to fraudulently misrepresenting to Plaintiff that the IA had no finding, and would remain open as pending, when in fact this was untrue, Regents and Spicuzza concealed this fact from Plaintiff, in order to further its fraud, duress, and misrepresentation to support constructively discharging Plaintiff's employment through a fraudulent settlement agreement.

Among other things, Plaintiff was induced by Defendants' misrepresentations to enter into the settlement agreement and release certain claims and his pending discrimination lawsuit, and would not have done so if the Defendants had not made false representations, or concealed and failed to disclose the material information alleged above. This further denied Plaintiff his statutory rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 3300 et. seq.).”

Finally:

“Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Regents have disclosed to the news media that the IA was in fact closed as "sustained" against Plaintiff and that Plaintiff "resigned" as a result of the IA. Plaintiff discovered this fraud when he was contacted and questioned by the news media about what misconduct he had engaged in to be terminated from his position as a police officer.”

Brief Commentary:

Based on a reading of the settlement agreement, it would appear that Officer Calvin Chang would have a case against the University for breach of their settlement agreement. This is particularly damaging if true because the university would have interfered with his ability to receive new employment.

As originally mentioned, the university has not received a copy of the complaint and we have not heard their side of the story. The Vanguard will continue to follow this case as more developments occur.

UPDATE AT 4:30 PM WEDNESDAY

Julia Ann Easley, spokesperson for UC Davis emailed the Vanguard Wednesday afternoon with an official statement from the University:

Although the university has not been served, a lawyer representing the University has reviewed the complaint filed by Calvin Chang.

The university believes the case has no merit.

The university entered into a settlement agreement with Mr. Chang in 2008 to resolve all of his employment-related claims and secure his resignation from the police department.

As a term of the settlement agreement, Mr. Chang agreed that anytime he signed a waiver authorizing a prospective employer to review his personnel file, the potential employer or its agent would be given access to Mr. Chang¹s entire personnel file. The university believes that it has complied with these and all other terms of the agreement.

Once the lawsuit is served on the university, the university will have 30 days to file a response with the court.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Read My Lips... No New Taxes?

City Needs To Solve Its Fiscal Problems First Before Going to the Taxpayers for a Renewal of Existing Taxes

At the risk of sounding somewhat well... Republican, there is something to this at least from the standpoint of local government. It is really not that I am opposed to new taxes, it is that there needs to be some incentive for the city to negotiate hard this with the various bargaining units. Let us back up a few steps first here.

The city is facing an interesting dilemma. There is a long term structural problem facing the city with the scope of city contracts and the nature of pensions. There is a shorter term problem with the city's budget that has less to do with the long term structural problem than it does a short-term revenue problem resulting primarily from the recession and the loss of tax revenue.

If done correctly, the city can use the short term problem to give them the leverage to fix the longer term problem. However, that remains one gigantic "if." The temptation is going to be for the bargaining units to attempt simply to hold off on the tough decisions until the economy improves. So many of them will likely push to simply extend the current contract. The city must fight hard against that urge.

At last week's city council meeting, it became clear that neither the council nor city staff wanted to raise or impose any new taxes in the near future to solve the city's growing problem of unmet needs. While I agree with that approach, it does not solve the city's problems either in the short term or the long term.

Instead they have suggested that they will simply place the current taxes back on the ballot. That would include an extension of the Parks Tax, which is a parcel tax requiring two-thirds vote and an extension of the half-cent sales tax.

In order to get the sales tax on the ballot for a vote in June of 2010, they would need to have it ready by January 2010. To me that gives the city nearly one year to get their house in order. Because if they do not get their house in order, for the first time in my life I will not only oppose a new tax (which I did previously with the Parks tax), but I will actively work against the tax. I will get a group of citizens together, we will walk precincts, we will raise money, and we will run a campaign opposing a new sales tax.

In other words, the city will have to run a tax against organized and financed opposition.

Honestly, I do not want to do this for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, despite rumors to the contrary, I simply have better things to do with my time. Moreover, I actually believe there are vital services that the city offers and will not be able to do if they do not have that tax revenue. Frankly the services I would least like to see cut will be the ones that go if the tax revenue disappears.

On the other hand, we need changes and we need to give the city leverage to make those changes. Right now the residents of the city of Davis, many of them do not realize the peril that their city is in. Although as I talk to more and more people at Farmer's Market, it becomes clear that many are aware of these problems.

The city needs to negotiate hard on behalf on the citizens to fix these structural problems that loom.

First, it needs to be made clear, city employees are not the targets of this. The real concern is the rise of top-end salaries. If you look at the list of 100K jobs for the city of Davis, most of them are public safety employees and most of those are in exactly one department--fire.

The city needs to hold the line on the top end salaries. City Manager Bill Emlen showed good faith by not taking a raise, we need a wage freeze across the board for top end employees.

Second, we need to change the way we finance our pensions. We get another opportunity here with the problems that PERS is facing and the fact that city's are going to need to cover a higher percentage of the yearly contributions because the fund is running a deficit due to drops in the Stock Market and some bad investments.

The city needs employees, especially those on the top end, particularly those getting 2.5% at 55 and 3% at 50 to contribute to their retirement pensions. If we do that, we do not need a two-tier system that most public employees and their unions deem unfair. And if we do that, the city will face much less risk in the future from the rising costs of these pensions.

Third, and this falls mainly on the fire department, we need to change the way we deliver these services. We are one of the few municipalities that uses four-men teams to fight fires. And we don't often fight fires. The vast majority of the calls are for medical emergencies. Why are we sending in four-men fire fighting teams for medical emergencies? If you ask the fire department, in part, it's because if they get another call, they need all of their equipment and manpower. But the result of this practice is inefficiencies and a waste of money.

I'm not going to try to come up with the answer. That is for the fire department and city staff to do. However, that is a lot of money for not as much service as we are led to believe.

In addition, there has long been a push for a fourth fire station. That is something that we can look into when we fix the staffing situation. I think an innovative approach here can save the city money and also enable the fire department to get the tools they think they need to be effective.

But in order to be effective these other things have to be solved first. We have a window of opportunity. Everyone is going to have to give this year. We have a chance to fix some of these problems because of the unfortunate situation with the economy.

If the city knows that the public will not support a tax measure without fixing our fiscal health, the city will have the leverage it needs to get a more favorable agreement from the various bargaining groups.

Once again, I want to reiterate this. People have used this opportunity to attack all city employees. The majority of city employees are making $60K or less--which is not a whole lot given the cost of living in this city. The problems are really on the top end. In better times, I would be absolutely supportive of the average city employee getting a pay raise. Unfortunately these are not good times. However, these employees are not part of the larger structural problem. They do not deserve to be attacked or disparaged in this process.

The bottom line again is that the city has the opportunity to hold the line and fix some of its longer term fiscal problems as it tries to deal with its shorter term budget deficit. Hopefully they will use this time wisely.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Former Officer Files Suit Against UC Davis Charging Racial and Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Former UC Davis Police Officer Calvin Chang has filed a lawsuit against the UC Regents and UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza alleging complaints of racial and sexual orientation discrimination, housing discrimination, and retaliation.

In the lawsuit, Officer Chang, who is openly gay, alleges that he was subject to harassment including homophobic slurs and a death threat while serving as a police officer for the UC Davis Police Department.

Officer Chang was at the time of his hire the only Asian-American officer on the campus and the first openly gay officer. According to the complaint:

“During the relevant times, Plaintiff was subjected to a pattern of harassment and discrimination because of his race and sexual orientation, including but not limited to the following: a racial slur broadcasted to Plaintiff over the police radio by his supervisor, superiors referred to Plaintiff as "Mr. Chang" instead of by his earned title of "Officer Chang," repeatedly referred to by the name of the agency's previous Asian-American officer, denied timely backup, subjected to a derogatory slur ("fag") by a probationary police officer (whom Regents passed on probation) in the presence of his supervisor, offensive homosexual innuendos from a supervisor, referred to as a "****ing fag" by his supervisor (whom Spicuzza promoted and assigned to the "professional standards unit" in command of internal affairs), subjected to numerous false internal affairs investigations.”

In July of 2003, Officer Chang was terminated from the UC Davis Police Department. By September 2003, he filed complaints of discrimination and harassment in connection with his termination.

“After Plaintiff's mistreatment and termination was reported in the news media beginning on or about October 29, 2003, Regents ordered Plaintiff summarily reinstated on October 31, 2003 and agreed with the DFEH [Department of Fair Employment and Housing] to provide all sworn staff with discrimination prevention training. As of Plaintiff's last termination in 2008, despite repeated reassurances, Regents have failed to provide agreed upon training.”

The suit alleges that the

“Defendants initiated, directed, encouraged, and subjecting Plaintiff to a malicious, severe, and unrelenting pattern of retaliation.”

These complaints included an alleged death threat. However according to a press release:

“UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza concluded she ‘could not identify’ which officer wrote the threat, even though the threat was written in the officer’s own handwriting.”

Moreover, Officer Chang alleges that in response to a complaint about discrimination, Chief Spicuzza stated to Officer Chang, “Why don’t you leave?”

The suit alleges a long list of various incidents of harassment and retaliations including a punitive transfer, failure to properly protect Officer Chang, and soliciting complaints against Officer Chang. Officer Chang claims that the Police Chief initiated several “malicious and false” internal affairs investigations against the Officer.

According to the press release by attorney Anthony Luti representing Officer Calvin Chang:

“These actions culminated in a lawsuit filed [today]… Chang alleges that in 2008, he was unlawfully terminated for the second time, after the UC Davis Police Department fabricated an internal affairs alleging that he “failed to have a backup officer” when he searched a laundry room at the Segundo Residence Hall. Chang’s lawsuit alleges that Spicuzza intentionally misrepresented that the internal affairs investigation had “no finding.” However, UC Davis concealed and intentionally misrepresented that it had sustained the allegation and then falsely and maliciously reported that he had resigned as a result of the internal affairs complaint.”

UC Davis has also attempted retaliation, according to the plaintiff, by

“unlawfully threatening [to] take his home of ten years—located in Aggie Village on the UC Davis campus. As a result of a complaint Chang filed with the CA Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the University agreed that it would cease any further actions, again choosing to explain its actions as based on “miscommunication.”

Furthermore, the plaintiff reports:

“In a letter responding to Chang’s complaint, [UC Davis Chancellor Larry] Vanderhoef described the University’s action as “a result of administrative error” and that there was no “evidence that these actions were intended to be retaliatory.”

Officer Calvin Chang is seeking a reinstatement of his position and general damages for the loss of his career and public safety pension valued at over $3 million. Moreover he is also seeking damages for emotional distress and punitive damages against Chief Spicuzza for failure to prevent harassment, fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

The Vanguard at time of publication has not had an opportunity to speak to UC Davis, however, will follow up if when there is an official response.

In the fall of 2007, the Vanguard received an anonymous mailing through the US Postal service depicting a series of complaints against Chief Spicuzza, Captain Joyce Souza, and now former Captain Leslie Brown. That was followed up in the spring of 2008 with an anonymous email detailing further events and abuses. Both of these communications appear to have merit and the Vanguard has been conducting a long investigation of the UC Davis Police Department and the upper management. As a result, the Vanguard has discovered reason to believe that Officer Chang’s complaint is not an isolated incident but rather part of a long and sustained pattern of alleged discrimination, retaliation, and abuse. The Vanguard will be following up on these allegations and will have a full report in the future.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Vanguard Analysis: Enterprise Obscures Where It Should Shine A Light

The vote on Tuesday night on the B Street project was admittedly a bit confusing in its conception. However, the Davis Enterprise article made it more so, not less so.

The title of the article was "Project will get another chance."

In a technical sense, that may be true. Council by a 3-1 vote passed a motion that would allow the applicant Marie Ogrydziak to bring her project back without having to pay additional fees. However, the motion directed her to work with the neighbors (who were overwhelmingly against the current project) and change her plans. Under those conditions, she would have to bring the project back through the HMRC (Historic Resources Management Commission) and Planning Commission. If they approved the design changes, the project would actually never come before council. The only reason the project came before council to begin with was that the Planning Commission by a 5-2 vote rejected the project as not meeting project guidelines.

The Enterprise continues:

"On Tuesday night, the City Council decided that Ogrydziak could resubmit her proposal and the council will consider it again, without Greenwald's participation."

Here again, it is more than a bit misleading. First, technically speaking, the project does not have to go back to council. But let us suppose it does, is Councilmember Greenwald conflicted out?

That is far from clear. She did not participate on Tuesday night. That much we know. But there are two possibilities for her participating. First, council at somepoint is going to revisit the issue of conflict of interest. Staff will look at the current rules. Second, Sue Greenwald could be ruled not to have a conflict by virtue of the fact that her property value would not be impacted by the project.

The applicant tried to argue that everyone in that neighborhood would be impacted one way or another by the project. But realistically speaking, given the distance which is 470 from property line to property line and an excess of 500 from house to house, given the fact that there is no direct sight line, given the fact that they are not on the street, or as Councilmember Greenwald put it, it's a design review rather than a project review, it is difficult to sustain the applicants point.

Nonetheless, none of this has been determined at this point.

The Enterprise's synopsis of the motion comes about halfway through the article:

"The council could have upheld its November decision if it so chose, but instead it said it would consider a resubmittal of the project if Ogrydziak worked with the neighbors and changed her plans."

The council basically did uphold their November decision. However, in the spirit of Former Mayor Maynard Skinner's olive branch, they worked it a bit more positively, rather than outright rejecting the project, they asked that it come back again. But functionally it is really the same effect. Under the November ruling it would be delayed a year and she would have to come back with a new proposal. Under this ruling, she has to come back with a new proposal. It may not exactly take a year, but realistically she is not going to redesign the project and get community buy-in all that much faster than she would have. So the only real victory she wins is a fee waiver.

All of this is of course clear as mud. What is interesting as well is that Councilmember Souza's motion "directs" the applicant to work with the neighborhood for changes within the design. However, as we know from City Attorney Harriet Steiner's legal interpretation, direct doesn't mean required by law.

As Ms. Steiner told Mayor Pro Tem Saylor in response to a question about giving direction, Ms. Steiner informed the council they cannot give "enforceable direction, but you can state your thought on the matter."

On that point the council was clear as was Councilmember Souza:

"I'm going to be straight out, I'm going to vote against the project if it comes back to us exactly as it was. So we're putting her through the process without any change in the outcome. So what I'm saying in my motion is that if you want to see me vote in the affirmative, you have to change the project. The project has to meet the guidelines as I see them in order for me to affirmatively vote for it. I think it is the best thing for this process to go through a process of neighborhood discussion."

He continued:

"I'll vote against bringing it back for a rehearing because I think it's a waste of time. I don't want our time to be wasted and I would prefer we give direction that's positive."

And that is really the final complaint with the Enterprise article, it did not capture adequately the tone of the decision by the council. The suggestion in the headline and parts of the article is that the applicant was successful. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that the applicant did not leave Council Chambers with the belief that she had prevailed. If she believed she was going to be able to put forward the project as currently designed she was sorely mistaken.

However, that is not the impression that the article gives.

Part of the problem is that the Enterprise only gives the matter 415 words--which is itself a problem. A breakdown of word usage shows us why the tone is misleading however.

The first 121 words deals with background and Councilmember Greenwald's participation which was suggested to be inappropriate but not definitively determined as such during this meeting.

The next 57 words suggests that the council will reconsider it without Greenwald's participation and then that they could have upheld November's decision but chose not to.

It's only the next 105 words with actually deal with what Councilmember Souza, the drafter of the motion, said. This is the only portion that casts a negative light on the decision from the applicant's perspective.

Mayor Pro Tem Saylor's procedural manuevering, which was rejected, gets almost as many words, 100, as Souza's motion which was adopted.

14 words go to:

"Ogrydziak's project is expected to be before the council again after she resubmits plans."

Which is actually not true as we've discussed.

And finally 18 words to:

"The council also agreed to discuss at a future meeting how other cities and organizations handle conflict-of-interest matters. "

Which is actually an important aspect of this in its own right because that's in part how Councilmember Greenwald's participation will be determines, IF the matter even comes back to council.

There are really two problems here. One is that this story is only assigned 415 words. You just cannot do an adequate job with that short a story on this complex an issue. That is certainly not the reporter's fault. One of the big advantages the Vanguard has is that there is no word limitation.

The second problem is that you need to adequately reflect the tone and functional outcome of the decision. In that sense this article fails. First with the headline which is technically accurate but completely misleading in tone. Second, with the construction of the article that buries in the middle and underrepresents the outcome. Basically 105 of the 415 words reflect the tone and tenor of the decision and it is placed in the middle and off the front page of the newspaper. That needs to go up front and needs to also be longer.

The bottom line is that a person reading only that article on this issue would not come away with an accurate sense of what actually happened on Tuesday night.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Good News Bad News For Davis Schools

CTA Launches Campaign Against Class Size Reduction Flexibility

If you read through the numbers reported on Thursday, Davis Schools will likely given some measure of flexibility survive without major teacher layoffs at least through 2010-11. The district got some more good news perhaps when the House passed the stimulus plan that will contain for schools.

Davis will get roughly $2.7 million over the next two years. That includes money for construction and modernization, some for programs for low-income students, and nearly $1.8 million for special education programs. Woodland stands to get far more based on a higher percentage of lower-income students than Davis, but Woodland is also far worse off than Davis.

However, the Senate still needs to approve its own version of the stimulus in the coming week. When it does, there is expected to be considerably less money for the district in it and the reconciliation will mean that Davis will get something, but not what the House version would give it.

Meanwhile, if we go back and look at the budget projections for the district, one of the big caveats was whether or not the district would get Class Size Reduction Flexibility. Allowing the district to raise class size from 20 to 22 would allow it a saving of nearly $1 million per year, which means $2 million by 2010-11.

During his presentation on Tuesday, Bruce Colby suggested that of all the proposals in the Governor's budget, a change in class size reduction or CSR, was most problematic.

Based on a teleconference with CTA President David Sanchez on Friday, I would suggest that actually overstates the possibility of CSR changes being implemented. The CTA is going to war against flexibility in the use of CSR.

Mr. Sanchez said:

"What's most offensive is that eliminating class-size reduction won't save the state one dime. Districts will continue to receive that funding from the state, but won't have to spend that money on class-size reduction, or frankly, even in the classroom."

Let me make two caveats to what I am about to say. First, I am very familiar with the data from Davis' perspective but less so around the state. Everything I know about Davis is that the flexibility is what Davis needs to survive the next two years without cutting teachers or programs.

Second, in general I am supportive of the teachers unions, but I think in this case they are misguided.

Right now, district need flexibility in the money that they receive and we need to trust local districts to know how best to spend it rather than Sacramento.

Also at the press conference was Alicia Gaddis who is chairwoman of the Sacramento branch of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (you might be more familiar with their acronym, ACORN, they do more than just register voters however).

"I can assure you that the districts in poorer neighborhoods will be the first to increase classroom sizes, [which] means the achievement gap will widen."

I would like to see the analysis of how CSR funds would impact that. For Davis, 80% of the money the district spends goes directly to the classroom. The question is where in the classroom it needs to go.

One of the concerns expressed by the CTA and others is that CSR was a process that took years to create and build up. However, relaxing the requirements for a few years until this budget situation is not going to destroy the program.

The bottom line here is that if CSR is left in place, school district like Davis are going to have to eat into their reserves more and eventually they will have to cut their teachers. Across the state schools are cutting their teachers. The only question is whether they can have the flexibility to simply use attrition and retirement to balance their books or whether they will have to deeply cut into HS and other secondary programs to survive.

It's a tough call right now, but if given the choice, most school districts would prefer greater flexibility during challenging times and then they can prioritize their spending needs.

The CTA is unfortunately showing a general distrust for school districts to make these choices.

In the meantime, CSR flexibility is probably now DOA. The CTA this weekend is launching a major ad campaign urging Californians to call the Governor and their legislators to oppose the proposal. Legislators already were expected to remove the proposal from the budget, this is just the coup de grace on that.

For Davis, that means a couple of million in flexibility for the next few years that is gone. The federal stimulus if Davis ends up seeing any of it when the Senate finishes their work will mitigate some but not all of that.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

City's Budget Hole Grows--Unmet Needs Will Go Unaddressed

A year ago the city basically identified around $13 million in what it called unmet needs. These were needed projects in a variety of departments that the city needed to undertake but lacked the available money to pay for them. As the Vanguard has mentioned previously, some of these are quite basic road repairs and other vital services.

Right now the city is projecting a growing budget deficit for the foreseeable future. It begins at close to $1.5 million for the current fiscal year and doubles to $3 million next year.



As Finance Director Paul Navazio stated on Tuesday night, the city is going to have to first address the structural and immediate budget problems. That means that these unmet needs will continue to be unmet needs into the foreseeable future.

From the staff report:

"While the growing list of unmet needs – both one-time and recurring – remains a significant concern, current economic and budgetary realities suggest that emphasis should be placed on securing existing revenues over seeking new revenue sources that could, potentially, jeopardize revenues relied upon to provide existing City services."

Right now the city is focusing on addressing existing revenues. They do not believe they will be able to in this climate get the voters to approve tax increases. Therefore the priority at this point is on renewing the existing tax measures--namely the parks tax and the half cent sales tax. One alternative would instead of the renewal of the parcel tax for the parks, combine the the parks measure with an additional quarter cent sales tax to produce the $1.5 million the parks tax is currently generating.

From the staff report:

"At this time, staff is suggesting that the highest priority related to future ballot measures should be the renewal of the ½ Sales Tax (Measure P), approved by the voters in June 2004, with a 6-year sunset provision. This measure currently provides roughly $3 million in General Fund revenues to the City.

Secondly, priority should be given to options for renewing or replacing the Parks Maintenance Tax (Measure G), which was re-authorized by the voters in June 2006, with a 6-year sunset provision. This measure provides roughly $1.3 million in dedicated funding in support of park maintenance activities. In the past, some concerns have been expressed over the appropriateness of assessing this tax on the basis of a flat $49 tax on parcels within the City. Staff has previously been directed to explore alternative funding mechanisms, to the point where the text of Measure G provides that the measure would be repealed in the event that the City secures an alternative means of funding parks maintenance activities."

What is driving this is the basic reality of the situation for the city. The taxpayers in Davis have already been asked to pass two parcel taxes for the school district and one for the library. They will be asked to pass another parcel tax by the school district in either late 2011 or early 2012.

The city does not want to be competing against the school district for tax funds. Right now they are simply looking to renew what they have. That would mean a June 2010 ballot measure to renew the sales tax or possibly fold Measure G into the sales tax.

The problem here is obvious but unavoidable given the city's lack of addressing the unmet need problem previously. The assessment of Navazio and the city is exactly right--the public is not going to approve the slew of tax measures that it proposed a year ago.

In December of 2007, the city was considering a public safety tax placed on the ballot sometime in 2009. At that time, Councilmember Souza even pushed for it by November 2008.

Second, they suggested a new sales tax on the ballot in 2010 with a quarter-cent increase. At that time it would not have subsumed the park tax but rather would have paid for street and road maintenance.

Finally in he called for a replacement of the park tax with an increase in the municipal services taxes.

Now the dilemma. Many will undoubtedly be pleased to hear that these taxes are essentially off the table. However, the downside is twofold.

First, the city is going to have to find a way to cut millions from the budget over the next several years.



Second, the city while cutting millions from the budget over the next several years, needs to find a way to chew into what is now $8.74 million of one-time unmet needs (including nearly $6 million for the fire department which I assume still includes possibly a fourth fire station and a new engine) and $7.35 million in recurring unmet needs, that one is more spread across the board.

In December of 2007 Councilmember Don Saylor said:

"Today we really can look at the structural deficit as we refer to so often as something within our grasp. The numbers are so small that they will be taken care of by small increases in the economic development plans that are already underway."

Councilmember Saylor was wrong. He did not foresee the magnitude of course of the economic crisis bearing down upon us. But he did not recognize that our failure to appropriately deal with the unmet needs would become a crisis just over a year later. The problem was that everyone assumed or at least three councilmembers at time assumed that we could simply tax ourselves out of our hole. Now that is no longer a possibility.

In the meantime, no one dealt with the longer term structural problem namely unchecked employee salaries, and this is not a general statement about employees. There are specific areas that are particularly problematic.

It turns out in December of 2007, that then-Mayor Sue Greenwald was the one who was correct.

"We have a structural deficit, we haven't really done anything to improve it, we've just changed our accounting principals, made them less conservative. But that also means it's going to be more sensitive to downturns in the real estate market and other potentially recessionary phenomena."

She continued:

"We have not only not reduced it [structural deficit] but we've also made ourselves more vulnerable to our PERS contributions."

Mayor Greenwald turned out to be exactly correct and the current Mayor Pro Tem was overly optimistic.

The system has imploded. We have seen our vulnerability to the real estate market downturns and for the first time really to a major recession. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. The unmet needs are still unmet and now there is no immediate plans to meet them.

It will be interesting to watch the impact on this community when the city has to cutback on vital city services. We have already seen push back on the issue of parks and recreation--and frankly that was mere pennies compared to what awaits us.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

District's Budget Workshop Shows Huge Deficits for Next Two Years

The Davis School Board met last night for a budget workshop. Given the fiscal situation and uncertainties in some ways the district stands in a much more challenging landscape than they did last year at this time. The chief reason for that is that while they are working off the governor's budget assumptions, we do not really know what the budget is going to look like if and when it is passed by the legislature.

As a result, the key objectives for the district are to look for ways to build capacity. There is an additional challenge of finding where the district can build in cuts outside of the categorical funds.

The district's priority is to find ways to reduce spending and get by through 2010-11 without taking money from educational programs. That is a tricky endeavor.

If there is good news, it is that despite the uncertainty, despite how bad the economic times are, right now it looks like the district if given flexibility by the governor and the legislature, a big if at the time this is written, the district can escape through 2010-11 without massive layoffs.

In part that is due to the district putting itself in viable fiscal position the last few years, in part that is due to a stabilized enrollment, and in part that is due to the generosity of the people of this district who came through with one-time money through the Davis School Foundation last year and through the passage of Measure Q in 2007 and Measure W in 2008.

Again, because there is no state budget, the district due to laws and regulations still has to adhere to a March 15 deadline for having an interim budget for 2009-10. Right now they are working off the Governor's budget assumptions until and unless there are changes and a more certain path.



The Governor's budget builds in cuts in the range of $2.5 million this year (as in 2008-09), another $3.3 million reduction next year with no funding for COLA, and right now no cuts for 2010 but minimal funding for inflation (COLA) and no funding restoration.



The Governor's budget does provide flexibility. Some of the key flexibility is that it allows districts to transfer money from their fund balance for categorical programs. This means that money that is normally restricted in use can be used for the general fund. For a district like Davis, this is a huge advantage. There is however considerable question as to whether this will hold. Democrats are opposed in general to this kind of flexibility for a variety of reasons.



In addition the Governor's budget also allows the district to reduce its reserve requirement. In essence this is one-time money that will quickly get depleted, but it will allow some districts to survive for a couple of years.

Finally, the Governor's budget, and again, this is subject to legislative approval, calls for the reduction of the school year by up to 5 days. More on this shortly.

The good news for the school district is that ADA is up, meaning there is no the problem we faced last year with declining enrollment. The bad news however is that our cash investments are earning less. In fact, we expect negative interests for the rest of the year. In a normal year these interests would yield around $750,000. Right now, Bruce Colby has this budgeted as zero income, it could in fact end up in the negative somewhat by up to $200,000.



Bruce Colby then showed where we currently stand. We are pretty much operating in the red, living off our fund balance and our reserves with no changes this year. And then we would end up in the hole $2.5 million for next year and $7.7 million for 2010-11.

In order for that not to happen, we are going to have to make cuts. The first set of assumptions are based on the ability to alter the student to teacher ratio from 20-1 to 22-1. That would save us $700,000 just for the K-3 and another $300,000 for the 9th and 10th grades. However, as Mr. Colby stated during his presentation, this is not likely to hold. The legislature of all the cuts and changes is most likely to keep the ratio. As you will see shortly, that will alter these assumption by quite a bit as the district will have to find another million.



How is the district going to make cuts with minimum impacts on education programs?

Well they are going to cut from the district office and not fill vacancies for risk manager, fiscal services, account tech, and board secretary. In essence, Bruce Colby will serve as risk manager and the fiscal services director ends up requiring additional work for him as well. That cuts about $200,000 from 2009-10 and 10-11.

Other cuts will include to counseling services and classified staff reduction. Both of those are simply through attrition. They will simply not fill vacancies. It will not require layoffs.

They will have some spending reductions, we're talking about $100,000 there. They think there is some flexibility in unused parcel tax funds where they can shift around for $200,000.
Finally the issue of the reduction of the work calendar. Right now they are discussing two days which would be $500,000. Every day they do not work, it is $250,000. One of the questions is how much of that has to come from instructional days. The board seems willing to double that to four days given the amount of money this would save. Part of this depends on the legislature approving the reduction of school days.

Those cuts still only save about $2.3 million for 2009-10 and $1.8 million for 10-11. The remainder of the money will come this year from the transfer of categorical fund balance. The next two years they will transfer $1.1 million from categorical allocations. They think reductions in restricted funds can give them $400,000 and for this year there was a $200,000 Adult Education Fund Balance that the adult school director volunteered to give back to the district.



With those cuts, you can see that we remain in deficit spending but we remain in the black across this period in terms of ending fund balance. Notice that the reserve is gone though by 2010-11 which means we could be facing problems for 11-12 if the state budget situation does not improve and it is not expected to.

So if the district gets class size reduction flexibility, we are in decent shape.




Without that flexibility, we are still okay but we have $1 million less next year and $2 million less in 2010-11. That means that our fund balance will be almost gone by then and we will really face potential problems in 2010-11.



The bottom line is that we are most likely going to be okay through 2010-11 given current assumptions and hoping that the state budget picture does not get much worse.

From my perspective it is not clear that we will have that categorical flexibility that the governor has built into the budget. But we'll have to see what the legislature and governor eventually decide when they finally agree on a budget.

Of course all bets are off if the state actually starts running out of money has to default on payments to local schools.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

UC Service Workers Come To Contract Agreement

Take First Step Out of Poverty with Historic Contract

After more than seven months since a week of strikes press for new negotiations, over 8500 UC Services workers reached agreement with the University of California that union officials lauded as the first step to lift thousands of families out of poverty. The agreement includes significant wage increases, a pay system that rewards seniority and a first time ever statewide minimum wage for their job classifications.

According to a release from AFSCME 3299, here is a statement from Kathryn Lybarger, who is a Gardner at UC Berkeley:

“This has been a truly historic fight for all of us. For years, we have been struggling to make ends meet each month on UC’s low wages. Finally UC executives have recognized their moral responsibility to provide a wage increase that will start to lift us and our families out of poverty, and provide better jobs in our communities.”

Lakesha Harrison, President, AFSCME Local 3299:

“After a year and half of negotiations, this is truly a historic day. We have gone on strike, held informational pickets, lobbied, ran television commercials and many other things that were key to get UC executives to do the right thing and readjust their priorities from executives to the lowest paid workers at UC.”

“We appreciate the strong support of many of California’s leading elected officials and community organizations. Lt. Governor Garamendi, State Senator Leland Yee, Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg, State Senator Gloria Romero, State Senator Gil Cedillo, Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, CLUE and other religious leaders, and many others helped convey the importance to the leadership of the University to get a fair and just contract for service workers. We appreciate their support for starting to end poverty wages at UC.”

This new agreement includes wages increases over five years of 4%, 3%, 3%, 3%, and 3%. For the first time, UC service workers will have a state wide minimum wage that reaches $14.00/hour by the end of the contract. In addition the contract includes the adoption of a fair pay system that gives employees credit for their service and dedication to the University. The agreement also includes stronger benefits protections.

Lt. Governor John Garamendi and a UC Regent released a statement:

“This is a good settlement. It will give some of the lowest paid workers at the greatest university system in the world enough of a salary to meet the minimum needs of their families. It should also be noted that only a small portion of the worker’s contract comes from the state budget.”

This is one of the key points. For those wondering why the lowest paid workers would get a raise during these budget times, the majority of funds do not come from the state budget as we have mentioned in the past. Instead they come from the proceeds from the quasi-private hospital profits.

Just a week and a half ago, about 60 workers went to the San Francisco office of UC Regent Richard Blum. The purpose of their visit was to try and talk to him directly regarding their contract. During their visit, the workers asked to meet and/or talk with Regent Blum in person or by telephone. When Regent Blum denied their request, 20 of these low wage service workers sat down and refused to leave.

At the time, President Yudof's response to the worker demands was to ask that these actions stop despite independent analysis that shows something like 96% of the 8500 UC Service workers receive low enough wages to qualify for some form of public assistance.

Despite the rhetoric from the President, the action seemed to push the process forward and resulted in an eventual contract for the workers.

State Senator Leland Yee has been a strong advocate for the workers from the start.

“I am pleased that the University finally reached an agreement with the service workers. These are tough economic times for everyone, but even more so for these low-wage workers and their families. This new contract is well-deserved and much-needed. While this contract brings the University one step closer to ending poverty wages for all workers, it is imperative that the UC also provides shared governance of the employee pension plan – a role every other public pension plan in the state provides workers.”

This contract seems to be a good start toward moving these workers toward more competitive living wages in the future. It has been a hard fought and long battle, but the workers and their representatives seem excited about the outcome.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Councilmember Souza and the Council Put a Stop to a Rehearing on 233 B

As we reported on Saturday, the City Attorney Harriet Steiner suggested that she erred in her assessment that Councilmember Sue Greenwald was not conflicted out of a vote cast on November 4, 2008 against a redesign of the 233 B Street property. Therefore the city staff determined that the applicant could request a rehearing without going through the normal reconsideration process.

The council will meet at a later point to modify and correct conflict of interest policies. We have discussed this at length already.

Despite applicant Marie Ogrydziak and her chief advocate on the council, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor attempting to couch this in terms of procedural fairness, the vote really came down to whether or not a rehearing would change the outcome. Ms. Ogrydziak would argue that it would--that councilmember Sue Greenwald had a large affect on the vote and therefore it was only fair to rehear without prejudice.

Marie Ogrydziak read a statement before council. She explained the background of why she believed Councilmember Sue Greenwald's house was within 500 feet. She pointed out that the Councilmember had to recuse herself for a 2004 project at the same location.

"Sue Greenwald should have been recused from the November 4 votes for the 233 B St project. Her votes had two major effects. One was essential for the rejection of a motion to include green considerations in the project approval process. And the other was essential for the appeal of our planning commission vote."

She then snarkly suggested:

"Jokingly we considered plate tectonics as a possible explanation for why four years later Sue Greenwald's property was now more than 500 feet from the 233 B St property."

She then accused the city of engaging in a "creative approach" to "attempt to prove that no mistake was made because there is no conflict of interest."

She continued:

"We believe such an approach starts the city of Davis down a slippery slope."

Ms. Ogrydziak then suggests it might be possible to find a realtor who would finds no impact on Sue Greenwald's property value, but suggests that would be contrived.

Amazingly she then argues for recussal on the basis of Sue Greenwald disagreeing with her vision for B St and that neighborhood:

"For many years Sue Greenwald and a small group developed and advocated a vision for what she sees as her neighborhood including B St. Several of our proposals and our actions run counter to her vision. As a private citizen she spoke against our first project at the 2004 council meeting and twice against our current 233 B project at planning commission meetings this summer... We believe in many ways Sue Greenwald is too close to this project and that she should recuse herself as it seems impossible that she can be impartial on this matter."

She then appealed to the council on the basis of fairness:

"In reality this vote is not about the project but about fairness and support for sound city policy."

Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor advocated for the staff recommendation:

"I think this is a procedural matter strictly, this is a matter of whether in due process and fairness the earlier hearing we had was proper."

Mayor Asmundson initially went along with the process believing that is what the council unanimously supported.

"To be fair we erred in terms of distance, regardless of whether there will be change, we need to rehear the item."

Don Saylor moved approval of staff recommendation. Councilmember Lamar Heystek seconded the motion with the friendly amendment that we "respectfully ask the applicant to work further with neighbors to further modify the design."

This was not acceptable to Mayor Pro Tem Saylor because "it prejudges the outcome of that conversation."

As a result Councilmember Heystek withdrew his second and Mayor Ruth Asmundson seconded the motion instead.

Katherine Hess suggested that if there was a different proposal submitted, it would be appropriate to send it back to the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Management Commission.

Councilmember Stephen Souza pushed for a substitute motion requesting the applicant work with the neighborhood for changes within the design that came forward and to take that through the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Management Commission. Councilmember Heystek seconded it.

Mayor Pro Tem Saylor then said he would vote against this on procedural issues and suggested that the

"applicant would have a course of action against the city if they didn't allow a resubmittal with no fees."

City Attorney Harriet Steiner shot that suggestion down:

"I do not believe that the applicant has a legal cause of action against the city by reason of what happened and Sue's participation at the last meeting."

The council danced around for a bit, it appeared that no motion would gain more than two votes. Finally, Councilmember Stephen Souza put his foot down.

"I'm going to be straight out, I'm going to vote against the project if it comes back to us exactly as it was. So we're putting her through the process without any change in the outcome. So what I'm saying in my motion is that if you want to see me vote in the affirmative, you have to change the project. The project has to meet the guidelines as I see them in order for me to affirmatively vote for it. I think it is the best thing for this process to go through a process of neighborhood discussion."

He continued:

"I'll vote against bringing it back for a rehearing because I think it's a waste of time. I don't want our time to be wasted and I would prefer we give direction that's positive."

Councilmember Souza's plea was so strong he pulled Mayor Asmundson with him and the council voted 3-1 to reject the rehearing with Councilmember Saylor dissenting.

Commentary

I had a problem with the way in which this issue came about. Let us forget for a moment the procedural mess that city staff and the city attorney made of this issue and let us focus for a moment on the applicant.

I will start out by saying on a technical level, I understand her plea for procedural fairness. The issue of whether or not Sue Greenwald was actually conflicted out has not been resolved satisfactorily however from my standpoint and I think the council has taken a good step in getting clarification on this. Based on that uncertainty, I think the council should have deferred the decision if they were inclined to grant a rehearing on that basis.

But frankly Councilmember Souza was right here--and quite forceful about it. The fact is that the reason he voted to abstain and kill the project in November remains just as relevant today. Ms. Ogrydziak in her letter seemed to assume that Councilmember Souza would continue to abstain. That ignores statements he made both before and after his initial vote. Namely that he didn't think this project was appropriate for that site.

More appallingly to me is the fact that Ms. Ogrydziak seems far more concerned about procedural fairness towards her project rather than the feelings of her neighbors. At that November 4, 2008 meeting, former Mayor Maynard Skinner presented a letter signed by all but one of the neighbors in opposition to the project. Mr. Skinner generously came back last night to offer to meet with the applicant to produce a more suitable project but was essentially rebuffed.

To me this entire appeal was a slap in the face to Ms. Ogrydziak's neighbors. How does it further the process of reconciliation if she attempts to essentially do an end-run around the initial decision without addressing a single neighbor's concern? That does not seem like a good faith gesture to me. In fact just the opposite. She was far more concerned about getting her process a new hearing that dealing and mitigating the concerns of those most affected by her project.

Fortunately, thanks to Councilmember Heystek's persistence and Councilmember Souza's forceful and needed bluntness, Mayor Asmundson recognized that any effort to rehear without major revisions to the project would be a waste of the council's time.

Sadly Councilmember Saylor was dogged in his advocacy for Ms. Ogrydziak's project. While at one point he suggested to her that the council had made it clear that they wanted changes, nevertheless, he voted in the end to waste the council's time with a rehearing that would change nothing. Moreover since the city would have waived applicant fees, the city would be eating money in addition to the time to resolve this issue.

At one point, Mr. Saylor suggested irresponsibly that the city might face a cause of action if they did not grant a rehearing--why would he bring this up in open session? If this was truly his concern, why would he not have discussed it with the City Attorney in advance? In fact, the City Attorney had already written in the staff report that she did not think the city was obliged for a rehearing and she was forced to reiterate this point in open council. This was tantamount to a not-so-subtle threat that was made by Ms. Ogrydziak and carried by Mr. Saylor.

In the end, the council acted responsibly by suggesting yet again that Ms. Ogrydziak needs to go back to the drawing board, redesign the project, and for crying out loud, work with the neighbors.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

City Facing Budget Crisis, Cutback on Youth Programs and Award Honoring Slain Teen

In a letter from Mayor Ruth Asmundson pasted on the city's page for the Golden Heart Awards this year, it reads:

"As a result of the death of Andrew Mockus in April 1992, the City of Davis Recreation and Park Commission expanded its commitment to the youth of our community. Forums were held throughout the community to discuss the problems of youth and to brainstorm on how the community could do more to meet the needs of youth.

After careful consideration, the Commission suggested the City Council adopt several recommendations. One of the Commission recommendations was to develop the Golden Heart Award. The purpose of the Award is to recognize outstanding youth in the community. There are two different categories within the Award: the service award and the personal challenge award. The service award recognizes individuals who have given significant service to the community, their peers, and/or their school. The personal challenge award recognizes individuals who have overcome a significant challenge in their life."

However, due to budgetary problems this year, City Staff is recommending that the Golden Heart Award and our "commitment to the youth of our community" be canceled.

In February of last year, the Davis City Council honored nine students with Golden Heart Awards.

"The Golden Heart Awards, which began in 1994, represent the best of the community in honor of Andrew Mockus , a 14-year-old Davis student who was killed by a group of youths in 1992 — an act that represented the worst of the community.

Following his death, forums were held to discuss issues facing the community's youths and ways the city could do more to meet their needs. The city adopted seven recommendations, including the Golden Heart Awards to honor courageous and kind students in grades 7-12."

Recipients last year included:

"Brandon Kitchen, a 15-year-old student at Holmes Junior High School, received a Golden Heart Award for his ability to overcome serious challenges after a biking accident that resulted in eight major surgeries, many months in bed and almost a year in a wheelchair."

The award was created in 1994 following the brutal beating death of 14 year-old Andrew Mockus in 1992.

From a Davis Enterprise retrospective published April 24, 2002:

"Ten years ago today, Davis residents discovered that an unthinkable act of violence -- one they thought occurred only in other towns -- had, in fact, taken place in their own back yard.

On the night of April 24, 1992, 14-year-old Andrew Mockus was brutally beaten and robbed of $2 by three other teens, then pushed into the side of a moving freight train and killed. The incident occurred in a gully near UC Davis, a popular gathering place for youths at the time.

Two days after Andrew's death, Solano County authorities arrested Michael Johnson, 17, and Andrew Childs, 16, both Davis residents and students at King High School. A third boy, 14-year-old Joshua Bettencourt, also took part in the beating but was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony."

At the time of the article, not much was known of the fate of the culprits upon their release.

"Today, little is known about the whereabouts of Andrew's assailants. Childs would have been released from the CYA at age 20, and his public defender, Harvey Bender, said he has not heard from his former client. CYA officials declined to release either Johnson's or Child's release dates."

However one of the youths, would kill again.

"What is known is that Bettencourt's involvement in violence and death did not end on that night in 1992. In December 1995, Bettencourt was involved in a road-rage incident at a Carmichael intersection in which he shot another man four times and killed him. Claiming he shot in self-defense, Bettencourt pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter and served five years in state prison before being paroled last October."

The story also quotes UC Davis Professor Larry Berman:

"That is to me the greatest injustice and the greatest miscarriage of our system, that they're walking on the streets and Andrew is dead," said Larry Berman, who was Andrew's baseball coach. He organized the planting of a memorial grove of redwood trees near the baseball field at Holmes Junior High, where Andrew was a student...

He remembers Andrew as a boy with great potential and a "wicked curve ball..."

"I walk by Holmes Junior High and look at the memorial grove," Berman said. "I remember the generosity of the community as they contributed funds to the grove and the bench that's there. The senselessness has been replaced by the great memories of Andrew."

Now however the community led by the city staff is on the verge of forgetting about not only Andrew Mockus but their commitment to youths.

In addition to staff proposals to eliminated the Golden Heart awards tomorrow evening, they are also talking about initiating "a $2.00 per drop-in rate for the High School Open Gym program."

In other words, they are going to charge youths $2 to play basketball. This is how the city is dealing with their budget problems.

The Recreation and Park Commission reviewed and discussed the various proposed fees for Recreation Activities in November 2008.

According to the staff report they agree with all of the proposed fee recommendations with one exception:

"the exception of the $2.00 High School Open Gym fee. The Commission also expressed their overall concern for the rate of fee increases associated with programs that are primarily targeted to the teen population. The Commission expressed their desire to have a more comprehensive discussion with the Council related to appropriate subsidy of these types of activities."

One councilmember is very concerned about these fee hikes and the loss of the Golden Heart Awards. Councilmember Lamar Heystek told the Vanguard, we should be looking elsewhere for balancing our budget.

"I find it disturbing that we are considering balancing our budget in all the wrong places. I cannot in good conscience vote to charge kids to play "open-gym" basketball. I cannot in good conscience cut the recreational scholarship fund for low-income families by $5,000. And I cannot in good conscience vote to eliminate the Golden Heart Awards, a program that was created in response to the brutal death of 14-year-old Andrew Mockus."

Of all of these, the Golden Heart Awards which honors the life of a fallen youth seem the most outrageous to cut.

It is not even clear there is a cost to the city associated with the awards. Regardless, this seems to be the wrong area to cutback funding. If the city is concerned about youth activities and youth getting into trouble with drugs and alcohol, cutbacks in these areas are the wrong way to go. As are cutbacks in the area of encouraging youth to give back their community. Given the enormous budget deficit, these programs amount to literally pennies. We need to start with the bigger cuts and hold off on these kind of cuts until we have a better sense for what is needed.

I would hope the city of Davis finds a way to continue to honor the memory of Andrew Mockus with the annual awards that encourage youth to give back to their community.

---David M. Greenwald reporting