The Board of Directors for the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA) Thursday named Dennis Diemer as its new General Manager. However, it is the fact that the communication came from Kim Floyd, or Kim Floyd Communications, that has drawn the attention of the Vanguard.
He replaces Dr. Eric Mische, the Agency’s first General Manager, who is leaving to manage a $7 billion wastewater project on behalf of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.
“Mr. Diemer is as highly qualified as they come,” said WDCWA Chair and Davis City Councilmember Stephen Souza. “He established a great record at East Bay MUD. Locally, he is best known for his role in the development of the Freeport Regional Water Authority, a joint powers authority that was responsible for implementing a $922 million water supply project in Sacramento. He has a proven ability to deliver projects on time and under budget.”
The release goes on to state that the Clean Water Agency is in the early design stages for a regional water supply project that will bring surface water to Woodland and Davis, to largely replace groundwater supplies.
According to the release, “The project was originally conceived to improve water supply reliability and water quality, but it was later determined that it will also help both Cities meet increasingly strict wastewater discharge regulations.”
They cite “A 2007 Environmental Impact Report identified the project as the environmentally-preferred alternative for meeting the cities’ objectives, which include improving water quality, water supply reliability, and the quality of treated wastewater discharge.”
Furthermore, “The project was also determined to be the least costly among all other alternatives that could meet the same objectives.”
As General Manager, Mr. Diemer will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the project, from final design through construction and operational start-up.
Previously, Mr. Diemer oversaw the delivery of water and wastewater services to 1.3 million customers in the East Bay, managed a staff of more than 2,000, and implemented a $1 billion, five-year capital improvement program, among other things.
During his 30-year tenure with EBMUD – which included time as the Director of Engineering and Construction – he also managed the planning, design and construction of numerous treatment, solids handling, reclamation, energy recovery and distribution facilities for both water and wastewater systems.
Mr. Diemer earned an M.S in Civil/Environmental Engineering from Stanford University, and a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Loyola University. He is a registered civil engineer in California.
However, the Vanguard on Thursday reported that ratepayers over the last two years have paid nearly $300,000 to the communications firm of Kim Floyd Communications, who was contracted to engage in outreach efforts.
Given the concerns raised in the community by around 4800 ratepayers during the Prop 218 process about the rate hikes, and the fact that while $300,000 is only a fraction of the $155 million process, the city and thus the clean water agency ought to be looking at every possible means to cut costs.
If this project is to go forward, it should come at a minimal cost to the ratepayers. And yet, it is not clear that Kim Floyd Communications is performing any service that could not have been done in-house.
The City of Davis does not have a PR firm sending out its press releases. When the City of Davis sends out a press release – it is done in-house. Certainly, among the two Davis Councilmembers, the two Woodland Councilmembers, and the various support staff, they could have sent out this particular press release without costing the ratepayers $100 per hour.
The Vanguard has also acquired numerous invoices from Kim Floyd Communications (KFC), detailing some of the work done.
We highlight this invoice from last December, right at the time of the announcement of securing summer water rights.
Among other things that KFC performed was working with the board members to edit and finalize the op-ed pieces that were received and run. They also helped draft and prepare two media releases, they helped to create and distribute “talking points” to board members, they set up briefings with reporters, conducted over-the-phone briefings with the Sacramento Bee and their editorial board, and also reviewed relevant media coverage.
This is the bill, just under $10,000 for the month of December 2010. A huge expenditure? No. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that, despite the differential rates, all of the itemized spending was billed at the higher $100 per hour level.
Does the public need information about the agency and the water supply project? Absolutely.
Do they need a PR firm helping to craft and perfect a message to be sold to the public? The city certainly does not hire PR firms to outreach to the public.
It is unclear why the CWA would have to do it, unless the express purpose was to help draft a message that would be used to win support and quell opposition to the Prop 218 process.
While $300,000 may seem like a small number, there is, in addition to a principle of cost control at play, a matter of some prioritization.
The city, for example, balked at the notion that they could subsidize water rates for low-income individuals who would otherwise struggle with the rate hikes. However, the city and council balked at the potential cost of such a subsidy plan.
Imagine if the City of Davis, along with other savings that it could find by streamlining the process, would take their savings and apply that to rate hike assistance program?
So, on the surface, it would appear that the ratepayer is not paying out a huge amount for this service, and that is indeed true. Nevertheless, it is money that could be either saved or spent elsewhere.
Certainly there is no reason that a councilmember or city staffer could not have drafted and sent out the press release.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Just another example of how the City wastes our money. $300,000 here and $300,000 there, it’s just chump change. We’re only hearing about this now because of a post on this blog and David’s investigative skills. Why wasn’t this all laid out from the start? (Maybe it was but I never read anything pertaining to it) I’m sure if the public knew that $300,000 was going to be spent to create talking points, to help board members draft op-eds, sell the project, etc….. they might have balked.
David
“certainly there is no reason that a council member or city staffer could not have drafted and sent out the press release.”
While I agree with you about the importance of saving even small amounts of money, I an not sure that this assertion is accurate. Wording of announcements certainly does matter and can mean the difference between what is perceived by the recipient as purely informational, and what is perceived as a piecee of political propaganda. Take the flap over the wording of communications from the school board last year, or the controversy over a single mistaken word in the ongoing DACHA controversy. When as much as a single misplaced or misspoken word can make a huge difference in project or initiative acceptance, a small investment up front may seem a prudent rather than a wasteful step.
I watched the CWA mtg on TV yesterday. Not very impressive especially the duscussion of adding a 4th company. CWA members left so little was accomplished.
The 4th company was not as professional or articulate as I would have expected for a job this large and the chair pontificated and beat around the bush until time was gone.
The protesters who are protesting the choice of companies made good points but that was not discussed by the body. Hopefully they will take that up at a future mtg.
Medwoman:
While I hear your point, look at what the city has done on its releases for say the railroad fence. They are either drafting it or the Mayor is, they have the legal team vet it, and it goes out. I don’t understand, given the need to cut costs, how we can justify $300,000 in expenditures for PR.
The PR firm helped “edit and finalize” op-ed pieces published in the Enterprise by our board members?
I want people to know that I have always written my own op=ed pieces and have never spent a dime of taxpayer or ratepayer money on them.
David, it really would be interesting to see who in Davis is getting paid for these services. I guess that’s not public info because it’s run through a private company.
As you can see, I am not happy about the PR expenses. One thing I have always liked about working at the local level in Davis is precisely that we do not hire PR agents. It isn’t only the expense that concerns me; it is the entire ethic.
Do we want to “smooth everything over” when their are real disagreements between elected officials and the public, or do we want to work out the substance of the disagreements? To me, PR smacks of manipulation of public opinion.
What I have always liked about Davis is that we don’t have the mindset that employs PR agents.
Sue, you are exactly right. This whole PR thing with “talking points” sounds like something we’d get out of the Democrat and Republican campaign offices. Do we really need this on the local level and do we really need to spending $300,000 for it?
[quote]Does the public need information about the agency and the water supply project? Absolutely.
Do they need a PR firm helping to craft and perfect a message to be sold to the public? The city certainly does not hire PR firms to outreach to the public.
It is unclear why the CWA would have to do it, unless the express purpose was to help draft a message that would be used to win support and quell opposition to the Prop 218 process.[/quote]
I am normally one who is not in favor of expenditures for consultants. But for the first time I have better understood the need for consultants like this. Considering the amount of DISINFORMATION being put out there about the surface water project, I don’t see how the city had any other choice than to hire a competent PR firm to make sure all the necessary outreach was done to educate the public. And even despite all that public outreach, you still have people saying they are “disgusted they just learned of the rate hikes”, as they concede at the same time they don’t read the newspapers, mail, or own a computer.
[quote]Do we want to “smooth everything over” when their are real disagreements between elected officials and the public, or do we want to work out the substance of the disagreements? To me, PR smacks of manipulation of public opinion. [/quote]
Council member Greenwald, you have been given special privileges at public forums on the surface water project, that no other citizens have been afforded, to make lengthy statements as to your views on the surface water project. At the last Q&A session, Mayor Krovoza was gracious enough to allow you to make a lengthy statement as opposed to asking a question (no one else was permitted to do this), in which you tried to start an improper debate in violation of the Brown Act that had to be shut down. Since you have been afforded these special opportunities to voice your disagreements, and that includes at City Council meetings, I’m not seeing the attempts to “smooth things over” that you are referring to…
Well, if this new Manager has such experience with East Bay MUD, perhaps he will support planning for a Public-Public Partnership for the Management and Operation of the water pipeline and associated facilities. He will value the expertise of public employees, the important opportunity to develop a partnership between public utilities and shared expertise, and the necessity of keeping water rates as low as possible without the need for returning profits to the investors and management of a private for-profit corporation. Around the country, as conservation measures kick-in and less water is being used, public water agencies are finding it necessary to “raise” rates, especially on homeowners – won’t this be even more true of “for-profit” water services corporations?
The trend as I have written here several times is that municipalities are taking public and taking back their water utilities that were once privately managed and operated, or owned.
At the same time we are putting the water rates before the public for a vote, we must discuss keeping the operation and management of the pipeline and associated facilities public. This is a discussion that doesn’t seem to be getting the needed investigation and support I believe is essential.
@nprice:[quote]Well, if this new Manager has such experience with East Bay MUD, perhaps he will support planning for a Public-Public Partnership for the Management and Operation of the water pipeline and associated facilities.[/quote]I agree. The thought of privatizing the water system makes me really uncomfortable.
Nprice: Agree with your comments. Sign the referendum petition; put the rate hikes on hold pending the June 2012 vote; we have 7 months to evaluate the competing issues; when the repeal is granted, the City then can come back with less expensive recommendations and a better timeline.
[quote]I am normally one who is not in favor of expenditures for consultants. But for the first time I have better understood the need for consultants like this. Considering the amount of DISINFORMATION being put out there about the surface water project, I don’t see how the city had any other choice than to hire a competent PR firm to make sure all the necessary outreach was done to educate the public.—[b]E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]In other words, Elaine, you are against PR firms unless some citizens or a cuncilmember have the audacity to disagree with you.
“In other words, Elaine, you are against PR firms unless some citizens or a cuncilmember have the audacity to disagree with you.”
Well said Sue. I’m going to predict that instead of “some” citizens it’s going to end up being a majority of the citizens.
[quote]In other words, Elaine, you are against PR firms unless some citizens or a councilmember have the audacity to disagree with you. [/quote]
Wow Sue, that’s quite something coming from you!
Can we get back to budget and water issues now, please?
Don, would you rather we talk about the demise of the buffalo?
I am not opposed to hiring a PR firm to promote a public goal. School districts do it all the time–there would never be a bond passed if it weren’t for these advertisers. I agree with Sue that in an ideal world, the public would receive the pros and cons in open forums. But this simply isn’t the real world anymore–Davis is not Mayberry. I am however concerned about the accusations that individuals are being hired to block or harass individuals from the opposite political camp, and I encourage both sides of the question to videotape and post any actions of this sort.
Drafting, clearing, editing and distributing quality news releases and other public information materials is a job that requires a level of professional know-how and content knowledge. It’s a job.
I agree with medwoman that it’s worth doing the job right. (I’d add the ZipCar fact sheet, op-eds and communication planning to her list of poorly handled recent public outreach materials.)
The public has an interest in effective communications between us and our government. The relatively small cost of facilitating that communication is more than worthwhile and, many times, ends up saving costs that could have resulted from misunderstandings or uninformed constituents.
The public information representatives I’ve worked with often serve an ombudsman role within agencies, partly because “knowing an audience” is critical to their work. They also tend to advocate inside agencies for transparency, and are the Freedom of Information experts.
Most agencies of any size have a staff member trained for this work. Others contract the work, just like any other responsibility that’s contracted out. One would hope the cheaper route would be selected.
Calling on our city councilmen to write and distribute media materials for an agency (just because they can and because they’re “free”) doesn’t make sense. They also could sweep up after council meetings, trim street trees and stripe baseball fields.
Of course, someone other than the “WDCWA Public Outreach Manager” could have issued the news release in question, but why? Do you know of anyone on the staff of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency who should have written this for the agency? (I don’t know how many workers the agency has.)
Yeah, I agree, let’s hire a PR firm for every project that the council wants to go forward. We have money coming out of our ears. $300,000 is just small peanuts. You’re right, if they had paid maybe $100,000 they could’ve hired a good PR firm to avert the whole Zipcar mess. Never mind that we already have legal council being paid by the city, by all means let’s pay more and get it right.
[quote]Most agencies of any size have a staff member trained for this work. Others contract the work, just like any other responsibility that’s contracted out. One would hope the cheaper route would be selected.
Calling on our city councilmen to write and distribute media materials for an agency (just because they can and because they’re “free”) doesn’t make sense. They also could sweep up after council meetings, trim street trees and stripe baseball fields.–[b]JustSaying[/b][/quote]I really don’t agree with this perspective at all. In my view, if city staff and city councilmembers can’t draft material themselves to explain their own views, then something is wrong.
If our programs are solid, it should take the staff member involved fifteen minutes to produce an explanation of them. The material should already be written in their staff reports.
I just can’t subscribe to this whole public relations stuff. To me, it is the antithesis of good government and the antithesis of what Davis is all about.
[quote]Well, if this new Manager has such experience with East Bay MUD, perhaps he will support planning for a Public-Public Partnership for the Management and Operation of the water pipeline and associated facilities. [/quote]
That was my exact thought…