By E. Roberts Musser, filling in for David M. Greenwald
Councilmember Greenwald stated she could not support any contract “that doesn’t make the necessary reforms in the cafeteria cash-out and allow us to put it towards paying off our unfunded health liabilities”. Assistant City Manager Paul Navazio clarified that the total compensation figures do count the value of the cafeteria cash-out. When Council member Greenwald tried to respond to Mr. Navazio’s statement, Mayor Saylor forbid further commentary. He would not recognize her, despite her having raised a point of order. Instead Mayor Saylor emphatically stated “as presiding officer” he would “take a vote”. Council member Greenwald was helpless to do anything without running the risk of censure or being stripped of a committee/commission assignment.
What was also disturbing was the Mayor’s unfortunate decision to start the meeting early, before the scheduled 9:30 a.m. start time. I arrived a few minutes before 9:30 a.m., only to find the City Council had already approved the agenda, tabled some items on the Consent Calendar, and a member of the public was in the middle of speaking. In fact ,Mayor Saylor realized his Brown Act faux pas, subsequently stating he would wait until 9:30 a.m. to see if anyone else arrived for public comment. Seeing no one at precisely 9:30 a.m., he immediately closed public comment and moved things along at a fairly quick pace. Most Council members were given exactly one shot at asking a question or making a comment. The feel was very artificial and rigid, exalting form over substance.
Now I realize it takes a bit of time to get into the swing of chairing a meeting. But Mayor Saylor has had ample opportunity on the dais to have learned from none other than Ruth Asmundson and Sue Greenwald, among others. He seems to be setting a tone that time is all important, meetings are to be kept short and sweet at all costs. Public commenters are held to exactly three minutes and not one second longer. There is no give-and-take in the questions and comments by Council members. In short no actual discussion on issues is to be had. Mayor Saylor seems to be ruling with an iron fist, and for no seemingly good reason. So far the meetings have not been overly long, have not engendered any lengthy speeches, have not had long public comment periods nor Councilmember inquiries or statements.
Nor has there been very much in the way of infighting, other than a Council member trying to have a chance to be heard. The danger in this inflexibility is that the public and Council members tend only to be exposed to City Staff’s point of view, which often can be myopic, depending on who has their ear (the Newpath debacle comes to mind). Two sets of eyes are almost always better than one. And such an unyielding style is highly undemocratic. This situation seems like a classic case of an insecure need for control. I would urge the Mayor to let go of the reins a bit – the horse he is riding won’t suffer much for it and will handle better.
The vote was 4 to 1 with Sue Greenwald being the only dissenting vote.
Hmmmmmm….where have I heard that before?
At least the old council had some 3 to 2 votes.
I hope the two new members aren’t going to march to Saylor’s drum.
Maybe the Council members should contact staff beforehand instead of waiting for the meeting to clarify things with staff. I just don’t understand the value of criticizing staff…in public…on TV. Sue should have had her discussion about the structural changes she thought should be put into place and, then come to the meeting with a short concise message about what those changes should be, instead of trying to engage in some sort of discussion about it. My guess is that Sue anticipated the 4-1 vote and was more interested in getting her views “on record” than actually affecting change to the MOU during the meeting. Also, with this kind of management of the meetings, I imagine that the entertainment value of the City Council meetings are going to decrease in the coming months and more work will actually get done.
Ryan, I don’t understand your criticism of Sue here. What did she say to staff which you think is inappropriate at a public meeting?
The truth is that there is no more important business members of the city council conduct that approving labor contracts. Nothing. They represent directly about 75% of the city’s expenditures. That number, though, understates the fact, because the other 25% is largely pass-throughs–that is, federal and state funds approved for things like low-income housing, redevelopment contracts, the Unitrans system and some portion of our public works. With the pass-throughs removed, the labor contracts represent almost all of the budget. (I don’t precisely know what that percentage is, just that it is very high.)
So you are upset with a member of the council because she asked some questions and wanted to explain to the public which elected her why she did not approve this contract? I don’t get that.
What galls me is that we just elected two new members to the council, two people who should be full of questions about these cockamamie contracts and all the provisions which harm the taxpayer interests now and into the future. And those two new members were mum. They claimed they were “fiscal conservatives,” and then voted in favor of this horrible deal. And you don’t even want them to explain to the public why they did what they did?
I find the silence of Jo and Ro to be shameful. I got the sense from their utter silence that neither of them did their homework, that they worked hard to get on the council, but did not work hard on this important business of the city council.
Ryan Kelley: “Maybe the Council members should contact staff beforehand instead of waiting for the meeting to clarify things with staff.”
One of Sue’s complaints that day was that City Staff was not getting reports to CC in a timely fashion so CC members could ask questions ahead of time. Rochelle Swanson stated she wanted more detail, as did Sue. If City Staff do not get staff reports to CC members in a timely fashion and in sufficient detail, Council members are forced to ask uncomfortable questions at the dais rather than ahead of time. Council members Swanson, Greenwald and even Don Saylor all stated City Staff needs to make sure sufficient detail is supplied in staff reports. And by the way, all the comments/criticisms to staff were reasonably polite and nonconfrontational. We pay City Staff sufficiently high salaries that they should be able to take this kind of “heat” from CC members.
The lengthy discussion on the $1 million subsidy showed clearly staff did not provide sufficient detail. I found the comments provided by staff in explanation extremely helpful to more fully understand the issue. City staff probably better understands the technical issues, but must make sure their reports don’t leave out basic explanatory details for the rest of us who are more ignorant.
Rich, exactly, thank you. Both of these people were elected because of their so-called promises of fiscal conservativeness. Then what do they go and do, vote like sheep with Saylor. In fact, that’s why I’m sure that Vergis lost because many thought she’d run lock step with Saylor as far as city contracts go. Don’t promise us one thing then sit idly when it was time to speak up. Our council members should still speak out, yes with decorum, but speak out nonetheless.
Wasn’t the contract hammered out in executive session? If so, isn’t that the time to address these concerns? Isn’t voting on it in public more a legal formality than a time for negotiation? It seems that this is the same old airing the dirty laundry tantrum style of Sue after not getting what she wanted during the private negotiation sessions.
Toad: No, the Hanlee’s contract was not hammered out in executive session. No, the voting was not a formality.
The staff report was incomprehensible to the a nonspecialist. I showed the staff report to a professional economist, who felt that the staff report was “not clear”, and that the proposal seemed complicated and “unusual”.
I am still trying to get to understand the fiscal implications of the contract that we were forced to vote on prematurely, without being allowed to fully question staff.
I think it would be extremely useful for the Council to pass some sort of resolution to the effect that they will not vote on a matter of any significance until and unless the CC has had ample time to digest the material. One option is to say that if an important report is presented at one meeting it will not be voted on till the next meeting.
Allowing staff to present reports at the last minute essentially gives them more power. I for one do not like giving staff more power.
As far as Jo and Ro go, I suspect they hope to pass off current contracts as past business, but I wholeheartedly agree with Rich and others that they ran saying they would change the status quo and they now appear to be quite comfortable with things as they are.
Meet the new boss(es) same as the old boss(es).
[b]AMPHIBIOUS BEAST:[/b] [i]”Wasn’t the contract hammered out in executive session?”[/i]
Yes.
[b]AMPHIBIOUS BEAST:[/b] [i]”If so, isn’t that the time to address these concerns?”[/i]
Absolutely not. The money being spent is the public’s money. The promises made in this contract will affect the public welfare 5, 10 and 20 years from now, long past the time these 5 individuals on the council will be in office.
All of the discussions held in private are off the record. What is absolutely necessary — though entirely absent — is a full explanation to the public why we are getting screwed over the way we are. Why is it, for example, that they city has built up a $65.5 million unfunded medical liability for retirees, and this contract does nothing to put a dent in that mounting debt.
Keep in mind that when I first exposed this problem three years ago in my column, no one in the public had ever been told we had any problem with unfunded medical bills. And two years ago, when the city first reported its debt, the number was $42.2 million. So in the last two years, with every single labor group getting a new contract, our unfunded debt has increased by more than 50%!!! And no one but Sue Greenwald on the council expressed any doubts about how this lousy contract is going to harm us. We have no money to pay this bill. And it keeps growing and growing.
[b]AMPHIBIOUS BEAST:[/b] [i]”Isn’t voting on it in public more a legal formality than a time for negotiation?”[/i]
Voting is. But explaining is not. Melissa Cheney did her job, as she sees it, explaining the deal that she and Paul and Bill struck. But it is the job of our elected reps — especially the two newest members of the council — to raise questions, to explain their reasons for approving this lousy contract.
[b]AMPHIBIOUS BEAST:[/b] [i]”It seems that this is the same old airing the dirty laundry tantrum style of Sue after not getting what she wanted during the private negotiation sessions.”[/i]
First, how do you know what happened in ‘private negotiating sessions?’ And second, since the public did not hear those discussions and the public does not know why the public money is being wasted the way it is, it is up to our elected reps in open session to explain themselves and inform the public.
I take issue with Council Members asking a series of questions that are only asked to illustrate the problems they have with a staff recommendation and not asked for the council person’s own clarification and understanding of the recommendation. This kind of “heat” is unnecessary.
The Council can agree, as a body, that they will not vote on an item if the report is delivered after a certain deadline before a meeting. Or, if delivered after that deadline that the staff member responsible for the report must be available (not on vacation, not in other meetings, not working on other projects) up to the time of the meeting for council member questions and clarification.
The point is that council members need to come to the meeting prepared and staff need to get used to writing clear and concise reports on time. They share responsibility for making this happen.
As an aside, I’d rather see RDA funds used to invest in something that will give us tax revenue into the future, than invested in non-revenue producing real estate projects.
Ryan:
“staff need to get used to writing clear and concise reports on time”
I agree 100%–and the CC needs time to look at this.
“I’d rather see RDA funds used to invest in something that will give us tax revenue into the future”
Again I agree; I blogged on the other Vanguard piece but the discussion seems to have shifted here. RDA funds should reduce blight and add to the community. VW may have some nice (fuel efficient, relatively green) diesels which I approve of (and might actually buy if VW ever can make their electrical systems reliable).
But there must be better ways to use RDA funds than to subsidize an existing car dealer (with sleazy sales people in my experience).
How many people here would like to see Davis becomes the car dealer capital of the central valley? I like sales tax dollars as much as anyone, but can’t we do better? If not let me know. I’ll move.
I was referring to the police contract not the VW joint in my above post. If Sue wants to air what she didn’t agree with in executive session she could make a statement, preferably one that is prepared, as to why she is voting no or do an op-ed in the local media. Although I do not know what goes on in executive session I think it is fair to assume that what comes out of the session is a majority consensus so wasting time in the meeting is more of an educational stunt for the public. Tying up a lot of council time when you are clearly in the minority on a 4-1 vote seems to be more sour grapes than anything else.
Mr Toad:
Yeah Sue is the problem. Not the other folks who just go along. Let’s complain about Sue and ignore the issues.
I should add an observation about the title.
Under our form of government, Mayors are not supposed to “govern”. The council as a whole “governs”, and the Mayor serves as chair, works with the City Manager to prepare the agenda, and acts as ceremonial head. Even regarding the agenda, the Mayor can be overridden by a majority of the council.
I think a more appropriate title would refer to the Mayor’s style of chairing the meeting.
Rich Rifkin wrote:
“Keep in mind that when I first exposed this problem three years ago in my column, no one in the public had ever been told we had any problem with unfunded medical bills.”
Rich, do you go down the meetings? And try to get answers? You post a lot here, you write a lot in the Enterprise about the subject, but this seems like armchair activism unless you ask the hard questions directly.
Is the average citizen left to go down to council chambers with your blog posts, Enterprise columns in hand and try to piece together some hard questions?
civil, That’s a fair criticism of me. I rarely attend the city council meetings. (I am on a city commission, where I participate actively.) When I speak before the council in public, it is usually on matters of business for the HRMC.
As to trying to “get answers,” I try my best in the time I have. I communicate all the time with staff. I read the staff reports (on the topics of interest to me). I submit public records requests and incorporate that in my columns.
I also regularly speak with members of the city council (though I have not yet spoken with the two new members). Very often, members of the council will call me for information on topics they know that I know. I think most of the time, they read my column. Heck, the so-called labor negotiation guidelines is a direct response to a column of mine from some years ago.
But my sense now is that they are using those guidelines as a fig leaf, because they don’t want to tackle our real problems. In 5-8 years, when we go bankrupt, what price are the people now on the council going to pay?
The truth is that our fiscal mismanagement problems go back to the contracts of the 1990s. Every council since has either made them worse or failed to make them better (for our city’s fiscal health). So no one individual or one council is going to be held responsible for our coming crash. Every one of them will point the finger at the others, or just hide in the penumbra.
If this council and the last one had acted responsibly, they would have had to pay a huge price for that (and the public would not have stood up for them). The labor groups very likely would have tried to mount strikes (though the police and fire can’t legally use that route). The council would have been accused of “solving the economic problem on the backs of labor!” Instead of making friends (which is fun and nice), they would have been making enemies of the city staff (which is no fun and not pleasant). So it is just a whole lot easier for people on our city council (save Sue on this council) to pretend that doing nothing will solve the problem (or heck, let those people on the council 6-8 years from now deal with it).
sue greenwald: “I think a more appropriate title would refer to the Mayor’s style of chairing the meeting.”
I would say I picked an ACCURATE title describing what acually happened. The title you want to change it to is what SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED 🙂