The question we really have today is: will they ever learn? For one who so often has his ear on the pulse of the politics in this community, Mayor Don Saylor can certainly be tone deaf. It is ironic that he now gets his hand caught in the cookie jar, because he managed to avoid the fray four years ago when Stephen Souza and Ruth Asmundson proposed a merger of the Social Services Commission with the Senior Citizens Commission, only to be forced to pull back as the backlash mounted.
Each of those groups on their own would have started a political fight. All of them combined would have made war.
The fall-back position for any broad, sweeping change is that it is simply a proposal. The reality is that “simply proposals” end up becoming policy very easily, if people do not raise a fuss instantly and loudly.
The reality is, once again, the process here was reversed. A small subcommittee met in private, released recommendations, agendized an action item on the agenda, the stakeholders were informed, and then the public was informed. No community discussion. No workshop. No give and take.
You cannot conduct policy in this town like this. And yet the council and city do it again and again and again.
There are so many changes that need to be made, but consolidation is really a last resort, if you ask me.
Instead, what we have is a sweeping proposal with very little input from either the current commissioners or the public. This approach has been tried numerous times on various topics including this one, and it usually fails.
Learn the lessons from history. In 2006, councilmembers Stephen Souza and Ruth Asmundson were on this very subcommittee, and they came forward with a proposal to merge the Social Services and Senior Citizens Commission. The Senior Citizens Commission cried foul. Seniors in the community came in mass numbers to express their anger.
The decision was first put off. They tried to defend the proposal as just a proposal. The Seniors got more angry. Finally they had to pull the proposal altogether.
Was it a good process, that spawned discussion and debate, as Stephen Souza tried to claim? No. It produced anger, hurt feelings, and the belief that the city and council really did not value seniors.
As poorly conceived as that plan was, this is so much worse. I could really write a separate story on each of the commissions that they are planning to merge and consolidate.
Honestly, I believe the plan to merge HRMC (Historic Resources) into Planning is probably the worst of the bad ideas. It is akin to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. The idea that somehow they could train planning commissioners, whose primary focus is on general land use decisions, to be the guardians of Historic Preservation is just ill-found and ludicrous. The HRMC is charged with protecting Historical sites and has done the job well.
At times such as last month, with the Davis Community Church’s ADA access ramp issue, it eventually became apparent that there are always other considerations. At least we have independent body of experts to weigh in on the issue of historic resources.
The idea that Human Relations Commission that deals with civil rights, diversity, and minorities should be subsumed into a group that represents the needs of seniors and another group that represents a group with disabilities and others needing social services again is an insult. It will water down the purview of these commissions.
Are there legitimate concerns about the costs of the commissions? Perhaps there are. Those costs were never quantified. The problem I have is, once again, we are focusing on budget cuts by nickel and by dime, when the 800-pound gorilla really dwarfs any savings we would have here.
However, if we do look at saving money here, start with what we might all agree with. For instance, the idea of the cost of copies is a factor. Go paperless with agendas, meeting minutes and other documents needed by the commissions. Go paperless except for people who need paper copies. There is so much paper wasted in this process, it is inexcusable. No one would disagree with that. Provide paper copies to those who need them, but encourage everyone else to read the material online.
Concerned that the focus of some of the groups is too narrow? Then have more joint meetings and ad hoc committees formed from representatives across commissions. That would possibly solve that problem.
As I argued on Sunday, the policy created last spring about when and under what conditions commissions should review development projects was insufficient, and we need to clarify commissions’ roles and when and which commissions are to review projects and other items that need to be considered.
Over the years, attendance on commissions has lagged. Part of that is that the council has made these more political appointments. If you want to increase participation, depoliticize it, open participation to anyone who wishes to participate.
The rule of thumb in politics is do first what you have support to do, get the low-hanging fruit off the table and then go for the hard stuff, if it is even worth it. Frankly, I do not believe that the commissions are going to save enough money to be worth upsetting the public service and community input benefits of the commission structure.
Mayor Don Saylor and Rochelle Swanson did the right thing by tabling this proposal. But bringing it back in a month is not going to change things. Kill the proposal and start again from scratch, the right way.
Have some public meetings. Have a workshop between the subcommittee and the commission chairs outlining concerns. Produce a policy based on true community outreach.
Bringing this proposal back again is doomed to failure, it is doomed to a 3:00 a.m. council meeting where 100 people show up angry, and at the end of the day your colleagues are going to balk at opposing 100 angry people when there is no clear community support for going forward with this proposal.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Bringing this proposal back again is doomed to failure, it is doomed to a 3 am council meeting where 100 people show up angry, and at the end of the day your colleagues are going to balk at opposing 100 angry people when there is no clear community support for going forward with this proposal.[/quote]
[quote]Each of those groups on their own would have started a political fight. All of them combined would have made for war.
[/quote]
David… I don’t disagree that “process” didn’t exist in this case. BTW, there was little or no “process” involved in creating nearly all of the commissions [Planning, Traffic (Safety & Parking, today), and Personnel Board] are “standard” in nearly all communities].
That being said, commission members are appointed by the CC. They are never subject to the vote of the people. Whether the “… hundred angry people… ” are right or wrong, that is a trivial number of people (all unelected) to determine the course of the city. Input, yes. ‘Power’, no.
I also disagree with the imputed ‘expertise’ of the majority of Commission members. Rather than being SME’s (subject matter experts), most are those who just like to impose their views on others. We do have SME’s who lend their expertise and judgment rather than just their ‘ideology’, and I appreciate them and honor their service.
I have no ‘dog in this fight’. There should be a broad discussion of the commissions and their role(s) vis-a-vis that of the “people” and the Council. But, at the end of the day, for good governance (not $ savings), I do believe it is appropriate to consolidate several of the commissions, though I don’t necessarily agree with the current proposals.
If you want to give commissions more power, change the Muni Code to make those positions elected. I am not recommending this.
A few points I guess in response…
Council may appoint the commission members, but the public elects council.
There’s an adage in politics, for every person that shows up at a meeting or even writes a letter, there is at least another ten that think the same way but don’t have time to come or write.
I think we need more not less community engagement and the commission
Putting the HRMC (Historic Resources) into the Planning Commission would have caused a bigger problem. Since the City of Davis is a Certified Local Government (CLG) it is required to have a separate commission, otherwise any project within the area near a historic property would have to go to the Office of Historic Preservation – Parks Department of the state of California to be approved, causing more delays for any project near these properties. Doesn’t seem the city did their homework well or have a clue on what that particular commission stands for.
Greeneyes… can you cite your regulatory source for the statement, “Since the City of Davis is a Certified Local Government (CLG) it is required to have a separate commission”? At this point, I do NOT challenge your claim, but I am very aware of so many ‘perceived’ requirements (regulatory myth?) in fact either don’t exist, or have alternatives.
“Mayor Don Saylor can certainly be tone death.”
Gotta be a typo, but, wow, that sure makes you think about the inadvertent implications…of imposing one’s tone deafness on others, for example.
sorry, guys, did not catch it! thanks, Briankenyon!
dmg: “The question we really have today is: will they ever learn? For one who so often has his ear on the pulse of the politics in this community, Mayor Don Saylor can certainly be tone deaf. It is ironic that he now gets his hand caught in the cookie jar, because he managed to avoid the fray four years ago when Stephen Souza and Ruth Asmundson proposed a merger of the Social Services Commission with the Senior Citizens Commission, only to be forced to pull back as the backlash mounted.”
The entire City Council voted 5-0 to leave the Senior Citizens Commission alone, including Don Saylor, Steve Souza, Ruth Admundson, Lamar Heystek, and Sue Greenwald. Mayor Ruth Asmundson directed from the dais that this issue of merging the Senior Citizens and Social Services Commission never be brought up again. Mayor Asmundson offered a formal apology to the senior community. Saylor on the other hand, chastized those who fought to save their commission by saying he disliked the “tone in the community”.
dmg: “The reality is, once again, the process here was reversed. A small subcommittee met in private, released recommendations, agendized an action item on the agenda, the stakeholders were informed, and then the public was informed. No community discussion. No workshop. No give and take.”
The first I heard of this was through the Vanguard and from our commission’s staff liaison just a few days before the decision was to be made. No commission input was permitted, nor was there any meaningful opportunity for public input. Thus the subcommittee of Saylor and Swanson did not have the opportunity to hear any other side of things than their own view. Swanson is new to the office, so wouldn’t be as aware of the history and purpose of commissions. As various commissions learned of their doom, they came forth in numbers to present another view. Why were Saylor and Swanson unwilling to give any opportunity for listening to the other side, instead circumventing appropriate and reasonable process in favor of strong arm tactics?
dmg: “The idea that Human Relations Commission that deals with civil rights, diversity, and minorities should be subsumed into a group that represents the needs of seniors and another group that represents a group with disabilities and others needing social services again is an insult. It will water down the purview of these commissions.”
That is exactly right – to merge commissions will water down the purview of each commission. In the case of the Senior Citizens Commission, it will prevent seniors from participating in local governance altogether, if they don’t drive at night, a violation of the ADA. The functions of each of these commissions is very different. And in fact, I would argue we need to add a Youth Commission. Had we had one, the whole debacle over Davis funding of the after school homework program probably would have never happened. A UCD student last night complained about how students are being left out of consideration in city decisions – an ongoing festering wound that need’t exist.
dmg: “However, if we do look at saving money here, start with what we might all agree with. For instance, the idea of the cost of copies is a factor. Go paperless with agendas, meeting minutes and other documents needed by the commissions. Go paperless except for people who need paper copies. There is so much paper wasted in this process, it is inexcusable. No one would disagree with that. Provide paper copies to those who need them, but encourage everyone else to read the material online.”
This solution has already been implemented.
dmg: “Concerned that the focus of some of the groups is too narrow? Then have more joint meetings and ad hoc committees formed from representatives across commissions. That would possibly solve that problem.”
This is also already being done, but certainly could be expanded.
dmg: “As I argued on Sunday, the policy created last spring about when and under what conditions commissions should review development projects was insufficient, and we need to clarify commissions’ roles and when and which commissions are to review projects and other items that need to be considered.”
This also has been partially implemented. It was agreed by the CC w the support of Bill Emlen that all senior housing projects be reviewed by the Senior Citizens Commission before going to CC.
dmg: “Over the years, attendance on commissions has lagged. Part of that is that the council has made these more political appointments. If you want to increase participation, depoliticize it, open participation to anyone who wishes to participate.”
Our commission has been virtually been 100% attended with commissioners in every seat. We also received CC permission to have two alternates bc sudden illness at times strike sitting Senior Citizens Commissioners. Right now we have only one vacancy, with at least one potential candidate waiting in the wings to be appointed.
I suspect many commissions struggle with vacancies because of the fear of retribution if one voices opinions too openly. Commissions are supposed to act independently of the CC, not as a rubber stamp. Over the years, I believe that has made certain CC members very uncomfortable. But it shouldn’t. Ultimately the CC is the final arbitor, no matter what an individual commission’s decision is. Why fear a dissenting opinion? The CC is there to hear all sides, weigh the merits of the arguments, then make its final decision. I suspect too often some on the CC have already made up their minds, and want commissions as mere rubber stamps.
dmg: “Frankly, I do not believe that the commissions are going to save enough money to be worth upsetting the public service and community input benefits of the commission structure.”
The irony is that commissions often bring money to Davis. The Tree Commission is a prime example – it brought in a $65,000 grant (I believe that was the number – correct me if I am wrong). The Senior Citizens Commission facilitated Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility which will bring housing and local jobs to Davis. The Davis Senior Center now has free Roadwise Review DVDs to rent out, thanks to our commission. It also has a CarFit program thanks to our commission. The entire state has two car safety DVDs in partnership with the CHP featuring our commissioners. And the list goes on. I have no doubt other commissions can point to resources they have brought to Davis, that the city would be without if it were not for their commission. Also, many commissioners bring amazing expertise to the city of Davis free of charge. I’m an attorney whose emphasis is elder law. Because of the connections I have to many nonprofit organizations that protect seniors, the city of Davis is getting free legal services and access to a wealth of information/resources that they would not otherwise know about. How do you quantify the value added by commissions bc they are staffed with some of the most qualified people in their field that is invaluable to the city of Davis?
dmg: “Mayor Don Saylor and Rochelle Swanson did the right thing by tabling this proposal. But bringing it back in a month is not going to change things. Kill the proposal and start again from scratch, the right way.”
I applaud Saylor and Swanson for tabling this proposal to take into consideration expressed concerns. That is essentially what Saylor said from the dais last night. But my concern is whether there will be true reconsideration, or just an attempt to regroup and “move the target” by thinking up better reasons to do exactly the same thing. I would urge both of them to take more time to actually include commissions and the public in the process before bringing such an idea forward again. What I think they will find is each and every commission has an important task, any minimal staff cost is leveraging huge amounts of free expertise and dollars for the city, and to eliminate commissions is biting Davis’s nose to spite its face. And think about adding a Youth Commission.
“Briankenyon”
09/22/10 – 07:45 AM…
“Mayor Don Saylor can certainly be tone death.”
Gotta be a typo, but, wow, that sure makes you think about the inadvertent implications…of imposing one’s tone deafness on others, for example.”
“highbeam”
09/22/10 – 08:32 AM…
“sorry, guys, did not catch it! thanks, Briankenyon!”
LOL, so David, how many user names do you have on here? It sure helps to have backup when you’re looking to reinforce your arguments, doesn’t it?
rusty49, I am only a proofreader, and not a perfect one
I would support disbanding the Senior Citizens Commission entirely, until such time that there is a Youth Commission. I think merging Natural Resources, Open Space, and Tree Commissions together makes sense, actually. The Human Relations Commission has been gutted and reduced to an event planning body for cultural events and could be just a series of committees instead.
greeneyes: [i]”Since the City of Davis is a Certified Local Government (CLG) it is required to have [b]a separate commission[/b], otherwise …”[/i]
hpierce: [i]”Greeneyes, can you cite your regulatory source? …”[/i]
HP, I don’t know if exactly what greeneyes means by “a separate commission.” It is the case that for Davis to remain a CLG*, we must have a historic preservation review commission ([url]http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1072/files/clgrequirements.pdf[/url]). I believe it is possible that if the Planning Commission meets all of the requirements of a historic commission, it can serve in that capacity. There are 7 requirements (A-G) of a historic commission to be compliant; and the commission must, among other things, enforce our historic preservation ordinance and must regularly survey and inventory our historic resources and potential resources. This is the language from the State Office of Historic Preservation:
“Establish an adequate and qualified historic preservation review commission by local law:
A. The commission shall include a minimum membership of five (5) individuals with all members having demonstrated interest, competence, or knowledge in historic preservation.
B. At least two (2) Commission members are encouraged to be appointed from among professionals in the disciplines of history, architecture, architectural history ….
F. Each commission member is required to attend at least one informational or educational meeting, seminar, workshop, or conference per year that pertains directly to the work and functions of the commission and would be approvable by the state. …”
*This page from the OHP explains why it is desirable for a city or county to be a CLG ([url]http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=23581[/url]).
Ah-ha!!! David, LOL, how many user names do you have on here? It sure helps to have backup when you’re looking to generate some controversy, doesn’t it? Builds up the readership, eh, David? (Or, should I call you by your [u]real[/u] name…………………….rusty49!
I have had a couple of people who proofread this stuff for the last two months or so. But, I’m glad rusty jumped to conclusions.
Rich – you cited what I meant to say regarding CLG – and have quoted seven requirements – although it is possible to have a planning commission do that, I don’t believe that it exists currently. Thanks for citing what I didn’t have time to do yesterday a.m.
Rich (& greeneyes)… thank you for the information… that is helpful.
Ryan Kelly: “I would support disbanding the Senior Citizens Commission entirely, until such time that there is a Youth Commission. I think merging Natural Resources, Open Space, and Tree Commissions together makes sense, actually. The Human Relations Commission has been gutted and reduced to an event planning body for cultural events and could be just a series of committees instead.”
And forgo the grant funding ($65,000) the Tree Commission brought in bc it is a stand alone commission? And forgo the 200+ jobs and dementia unit the Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility will bring to Davis bc the Senior Citizens Commission forced the issue of a fair hearing? Any time and money spent on commissions I suspect has leveraged far more in money and expertise for the city than the average citizen will ever know or understand…