Sunday Commentary: Did City Staff and Paul Navazio Sabotage Budget Cuts?
On Tuesday’s Davis City Council agenda, City Manager Steve Pinkerton has asked council to postpone the September 30th deadline to cut 2.5 million from the budget.
“At this time, when considering review of the above-mentioned alternatives to service reductions, staff will not be ready to make solid, fully vetted recommendations by a September 27th deadline,” the report continues.
“In the interim, staff is proposing to move forward with the following plans to continue movement toward a long-term sustainable fiscal plan,” the staff report continues. “Continued work on organizational restructuring will be advanced with outside consultants, as well as internal department evaluations, with a goal of implementing structures with non-service impacts in advance of our return to Council in November.”
Back in June, the City Council, in a contentious 3-2 vote, adopted the budget with a key provision that there would be a 2.5 million dollar reduction that would go to fund transportation, as well as retirement pensions and health.
The city staff was asked to do three critical things. First, return to the City Council by September 30 with a plan to cut 2.5 million dollar in personnel costs. Second, to develop these savings in close collaboration with employees and the community. Third, to make efforts to minimize impacts to lower level employees.
From the start there has been opposition to this ambitious plan to move city finances onto a more sustainable path. It begins with the budgets that Paul Navazio first came out with, that failed to address any sort of structural change, failed to address unfunded liabilities, and in fact did not even take into account the need for the addition of road maintenance funding.
In short, his initial budget showed a small surplus in the fourth and fifth years. But that budget was overly-optimistic, not only on revenues but also regarding expenditures. It failed to add in needed money for road repair. It failed to account for increased PERS (Public Employees Retirement System) costs.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald opposed the final budget on the grounds that it was the wrong time to cut personnel. She argued that the appropriate time was when the MOU came up. Stephen Souza was concerned about the lack of community outreach on these issues.
However, a bare majority passed the budget back in June.
Then came a game that appears to very much resemble a strategy in football, whereby the offensive team, ahead in the game, begins to stall and take as much time as possible in order to run out the clock and avoid having to play defense.
The city’s first outreach meeting was a farce, set late in August, just over a month before the deadline, few in the public attended and it represented little value. We did not attend the second outreach meeting, there was no press coverage of it, and we have heard nothing about it. Not promising, as these things go.
As Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson told the Vanguard the night of the first outreach meeting, this needed to have happened much sooner – like right after the council passed the budget.
“Ideally it would have been good if we had a couple sooner,” she said, “I know some of this is scheduling. It’s my understanding that there have been meetings with employee groups. And now with the community groups coming out – the plan is, if possible, that we have a couple of more meetings as needed.”
Then there were the persistent rumors coming out of city hall from various employees and other sources. We could never find a true basis for these, but what we heard repeatedly from multiple sources is that the interim City Manager was telling employees not to worry; the council was going to back off of the September 30 deadline.
Repeatedly, the council majority denied these claims and questioned where they came from. But it is now clear that these rumors were coming from somewhere.
We believe, in retrospect, this undermined council’s authority and was particularly damaging to the process, as it undermined any last-minute, albeit remote, possibility there would be labor concessions prior to the expiration of the majority of employee contracts on June 30, 2012.
Wrote city staff, “Given the desire expressed by Council to have minimal impact on services, allowing staff additional time to engage in a full collective bargaining process with employee units may also provide opportunities to avoid service impacts.”
But the picture gets worse. Not only does there appear to be at least the possibility of sabotage, the delay tactics are tremendous. The original plan was to come forward with a budget proposal for the first time on September 27 – mere days before the September 30 deadline.
So, we have large-scale opposition to this plan, a city finance director who clearly was never on board with it to begin with, two members of council already opposed, nothing gets done on the fire staff report, community outreach efforts are pathetic and late, and the first budget discussion was not set until September 27.
The question that we have to ask is whether anything at all got done on the budget in the nearly three months that passed between the time that Council first floated the $2.5 million idea and the time when the final cuts were due. Because from where I sit, I do not think Paul Navazio, the interim city manager and the man in charge of the budget, did a single thing to make this happen as directed by council.
For an illustration, let us look at what happened with the fire staffing report, which had to be a key component of any $2.5 million in personnel cuts.
There was an understanding that a fire staff report would come forward to give the city guidance on how to proceed with saving money on personnel, particularly in moving from four-person to three-person fire engines.
But that report, which was supposed to come out in June or July, did not emerge – and still has not, despite the fact that Mr. Navazio told the Vanguard in late August that it would be on the September 20th agenda.
“I heard that a draft of the staffing report was going to be to us in early July and a final would come in August,” the Mayor told Vanguard Radio, and “we don’t have it yet.”
“I’m very concerned that the company that is doing it for us, CityGate, is not performing,” the Mayor continued.
“What will be a shame is if we have to move forward and make some decisions in that area that appear to be rash, but if we’re not getting the reports that we want, that kind of maybe paint a better picture of exactly how we should go forward, I think it puts us in that position,” he said.
Writes city staff, “The Fire study is still in process. In addition, the new City Manager has had less than two weeks to thoroughly review changes proposed which can have potential significant organizational impacts..”
The Vanguard has always questioned the use of CityGate as the city’s consultants for fire staffing – as CityGate is run by former firefighters who generally have promoted more staffing for cities.
Back in 2009, the Vanguard learned that CityGate was the only company that the firefighters found acceptable to do a staffing report.
The timing of everything was clearly bad. The water issue obviously took up a tremendous amount of both council and staff time. That was somewhat resolved on September 6, mere days after Steve Pinkerton became city manager on September 2.
So now Mr. Pinkerton comes aboard, finds a self-imposed deadline to cut $2.5 million, and he is obviously not prepared to evaluate anything – it is obvious that not enough had been done. So he is asking his council for more time. That is a perfectly reasonable position for the new city manager to take.
The problem, very obviously, lies in Paul Navazio. Read this line again: “Staff will not be ready to make solid, fully vetted recommendations by a September 27th deadline.”
Does that sound reasonable to people? It is certainly reasonable if you are Steve Pinkerton, you just began work at the beginning of the month and were thrown into the water debate. But this was not his job to do, it was Paul Navazio’s job.
June 30 to September 30 is three months. That is a quarter of a year. But I think we need to put this into more perspective. The council had a series of budget workshops earlier this year where they laid out their ideas for the 2011-12 budget.
We had the Unfunded Liabilties discussion on January 18, a midyear budget update on February 15, and a budget update on March 29.
Now, the March 29th meeting was obviously roughly the same time differential before the budget as June 30 is to September 30.
What happened at that meeting? Staff continued to refine the revenue and expenditure estimates for the FY2011/12 budget, they highlighted areas of the City budget where corrective measures will be required as a result of projected funding shortfalls, and most importantly:
“The primary focus of the workshop – and the areas where Council feedback is particularly sought – will be a discussion of the overall budget-balancing framework, and the range of specific measures being considered to balance the FY2011/12 operating budget, restore reserve levels consistent with existing City policy, and advance the City Council’s goal of ensuring long-term fiscal stability.”
In other words, three months before the budget was due, Paul Navazio was getting direction from city council on how to attack the budget deficit.
Now, a few things of note come from this. From this point, Paul Navazio within three months developed a three-tier approach to balancing the budget AND he took direction from the council, much of which was not captured in the final budget.
Council asked him at that time to deal with unfunded liabilities and PERs, they asked him for realistic revenue and budget assumptions, and they asked him to deal with road maintenance and he did NONE OF THAT.
The parallels in the two timelines show that three months should have been sufficient time to come up with new budget proposals – even with a good deal of moving parts.
At the end of August, Mayor Pro Tem Swanson was led to believe that things were moving forward and were on track.
“I believe that we are getting some draft information that is going to be coming to us – so as far as the timeline that we spoke about in that meeting that we made those decisions – I believe we are on track for that,” she said. “I can only speak for myself in that I anticipate where there’s a need to be able to have some flexibility because at the end of the day, the most important thing is that we’re making some good solid choices.”
But in retrospect, it is clear that the council should have been alarmed that public meetings were delayed until late August, two months after the budget was passed, and the first scheduled public briefing on the budget was going to be September 27.
It is now clear that Mr. Navazio never agreed with the budget approach – that shows not only in his initial budget that ignored input from council but also in his actions since the budget’s passage. But he was hired to carry out the will of the council majority, whether he liked it or not.
We need to be willing to find all of the facts in this matter. However, if it can be shown that he intentionally slow-played this process, that he did as little behind the scenes as he did in public, then Mr. Navazio is guilty of insubordination and should have his employment status terminated.
Whether people agree or not with the budget proposal put forth, the decision of the council is the final word and needs to be carried out, and failing that, Mr. Navazio’s services are no longer needed.
The council needs to give the new city manager time to work his magic. He has a good track record in Manteca. There is no reason to rush this process.
The clock is still ticking, however, in fact with greater urgency than on June 30. It is clear the economy will not improve and that the city has a lot of work to do in the next three years to avert further fiscal calamity.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
To me how Joe handles the issue at CC will be critical to the future of this and other issues to come. He was the proponet of the 2.5M in a late inning of the budget talks and his response to this apparent slowing will be important. It sounds as though there wasn’t an action plan to get to the Sept 30 deadline with check points along the way to see where we were. To now be talking about hiring additional outside consultants seems stalling and unnecessary. Let’s see what the new CM thinks.
Oh good grief, this reads like a personal vendetta against the finance director. Why should an interim anything layout what affects the next city manager. If in fact Navasio did wait, then he did the ethical thing. No one should hamstring an incoming city manager with specifics that tie his hands down during his tenure. This is the Mayor’s issue – if he wants to push specific ideas, let him deal with the new manager. Try to report on both sides of an issue instead of making it personal.
[quote]We need to be willing to find all of the facts in this matter. However, if it can be shown that he intentionally slow-played this process, that he did as little behind the scenes as he did in public, then Mr. Navazio is guilty of insubordination and should have his employment status terminated.[/quote]
The Vanguard admits it doesn’t have all the facts in this matter. Then blithely condemns a city employee and calls for his immediate ouster, not knowing all the facts. THIS IS A MAN’S JOB, HIS LIVELIHOOD. DOESN’T THE VANGUARD THINK IT SHOULD HAVE ALL THE FACTS BEFORE IT DEMANDS FOR THE OUSTER OF A SPECIFIC EMPLOYEE? (And frankly, who died and made the Vanguard Darth Vader? A bit tongue in cheek, but you get my drift.)
It is entirely possible and reasonable that THE CITY IN THE AGGREGATE has made the decision to delay the self-imposed Sept. 30 deadline for a budget goal to 1) give the new City Manager time to get up to speed on the issues; 2) push Citygate to get their report done sooner than later; 3) to give everyone, including the public, a bit of breathing space, before important and potentially devastating decisions are made. There is nothing magical about the Sept 30 deadline. If changes are made Oct 30 or Nov 30 instead of Sept 30, does it really make that much difference? Really?
“Then blithely condemns a city employee and calls for his immediate ouster, not knowing all the facts.”
I clearly said, “if it can be shown” – which means I did not “demand” the “ouster” of an employee.
“And frankly, who died and made the Vanguard Darth Vader?”
Well my nephew did say he wants me to be Darth Vader for Halloween.
“Oh good grief, this reads like a personal vendetta against the finance director. “
Really? I rather like the guy personally.
[quote]There is nothing magical about the Sept 30 deadline. If changes are made Oct 30 or Nov 30 instead of Sept 30, does it really make that much difference? Really? [/quote]
There is nothing magical about the September 30 date, but that was what the council decided, it is not up to the finance director to change the timeline.
ERM: I think it’s “sweeps” month for blogs… David is just trying to stir the pot to get ratings…
I have to agree with Darth on this one.
[quote]There is no reason to rush this process.[/quote][quote]There is nothing magical about the September 30 date, but that was what the council decided, it is not up to the finance director to change the timeline. [/quote]
So… could it be that Paul & Steve agreed that your latter quote is the correct choice of action? On the 20th, the Council can choose whether to retain the actions on the 27th, or defer them… the CC memo doesn’t say they can’t. Do you have problems with professional staff advising the CC to re-consider a previous “action” that might seriously harm the city?
[quote]But he was hired to carry out the will of the council majority, whether he liked it or not.[/quote]Actually, that is untrue… he was hired to be the Finance director. When the City Manager resigned, he agreed to what he and the Council knew was likely a temporary assignment, he agreed to do his best to fill that void. IMHO, he was not “perfect”, but he did his best in the higher role… or do you question his performance as Finance Director?
[quote]if it can be shown that he intentionally slow-played this process, that he did as little behind the scenes as he did in public, then Mr. Navazio is guilty of insubordination and should have his employment status terminated.[/quote][quote]I clearly said, “if it can be shown” – which means I did not “demand” the “ouster” of an employee.
[/quote][quote]Really? I rather like the guy personally. [/quote]How many ‘ways do you want this? Mature.
[quote]Back in June, the City Council, in a contentious 3-2 vote…[b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote]There was nothing contentious at all, David. There was some discussion and a difference of opinion. There have been contentious votes in the past, but this was not one of them.
The solution to the long-term fiscal crisis of the City of Davis will be found in its labor contracts. Those will not be altered until July 1, 2012.
To me, the only real import of the September 30 plan is that hopefully it will get the ball rolling on returning our fire department to its traditional 3-man-on-atruck staffing model. That will save more than $1 million per year every year going forward. We can use that money to fully fund street and sidewalk maintenance.
One facet of this year’s budget–I have recently been looking it over–which surprises me greatly is extraordinaly large increase in capital improvements*. Here is the four-year trend:
2008-09 $18,146,124
2009-10 $9,101,891
2010-11 $8,870,632
2011-12 $40,048,742
Capital Improvements will be 24.5% of this year’s all-funds budget. That is a huge percentage. Not $1 for that will come out of the general fund. Here is the source for the CIP budget:
Special Revenue** Funds — $887,544
Capital Project** Funds — $7,747,557
Proprietary Funds** — $16,030,958
RDA Funds — $15,382,683
*”Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) funds … are used to account for financial resources to be used for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities (other than those financed by proprietary funds), i.e. the development of a new neighborhood park, or a police station. The city maintains ten Capital Projects Funds.”
**I don’t know what these mean. I guess that some of the “special revenue” is money from the Obama stimulus or the state. I have no idea why the others (beside RDA) are so much larger this year.
Correct me if I’m wrong….It’s my understanding that the report from Citygate is about the merger of the City and University fire departments and not just about staffing. It seems every time I see the Citygate report mentioned in the Vanguard it’s usually regarded as staffing recommendations. I think the report should contain such items like- if a merger is feasible, provide a better service for the communities, how to combine departments and reduce duplications (chiefs, staff etc.), save money and yes staffing recommendations. It will be interesting to see how it plays out……especially if the report recommends the current staffing in addition to the items mentioned above.
One note on CIP funds: every time the city spends $100 on a CIP project, $1 of that $100 is deposited in the Municipal Arts Fund. Nothing is placed in the Historical Resources fund. For example, the new E-F parking garage, including the retail component, will cost around $14.1 million. Of that money, $141,000 will go to civic arts. $0 of that will go to historic resources.
One mission of mine is to change this. Civic arts and historic resources fundamentally have the same mission: to make Davis a better place to live in its common spaces. We both intend to serve the common good. Yet we spend no money on historic resources. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on civic arts.
As a certified local government, Davis is required to maintain our inventory of historic resources. That costs money. We are many years behind and growing further in debt to this purpose. No one, for example, has surveyed any structures (save a couple of Landmarks) outside the core area. And within the core, maybe 25% have never been surveyed.
The lack of a survey hurts us as a city and it puts the property owners in limbo. When the owner of an older, unsurveyed building wants to remodel, he does not know what regulations are in place. He does not know if CEQA applies. And he will likely have to pay for a survey study for his one building, costing him money. It’s much cheaper for a certified historian to conduct a more wide-ranging survey, which hopefully will include all of these potential historic contributors.
My hope is that the city council will take 1/3 of the money now going to civic arts and give that to historic resources. We need it for our historical surveys; and we need it to complete our signage program.
Because my idea is a redistribution of existing CIP money, it won’t cost the city anything. It will cost civic arts. But to me, it makes no sense to give them so much and to give historic resources nothing.
[b]Rich,[/b] how is the CIP formula established/revised? More, better signage is a big need here, in a city that prides itself on tradition and history. And it’s surprising that we don’t have (and maintain) a quality inventory of our historic resources. I wonder if it doesn’t result in missed opportunities to compete for project money? Good luck on your funding mission.
PS–Is the water tank art cash still up for grabs? How much would it cost for a proper Davis inventory? Shouldn’t it include the “area of influence” territory as well?
[i]”… how is the CIP formula established/revised?”[/i]
It was devised by the city council through an ordinance. (Ord. 720 § 2)
Here is the language in the municipal code: [quote] [b]15.06.030[/b] Requests and authorization for appropriations.
(a) Requests for appropriations. All city department heads shall include in all estimates of necessary expenditures and all requests for authorizations or appropriations for construction projects, [u]an amount for works of art equal to at least [b]one percent[/b] of the total cost of any such construction project as estimated in the capital improvement program[/u] for the year in which such estimate or request is made. [/quote][i]”More, better signage is a big need here, in a city that prides itself on tradition and history. And it’s surprising that we don’t have (and maintain) a quality inventory of our historic resources.”[/i]
As to signs: we have gotten great feedback on the few signs we put up 2 years ago with RDA funds. I think residents and visitors, when they pass a property like the Scott House (301 B Street–Ciocolat) would appreciate knowing that it is a Davis Landmark and would like to have the chance to read a small bit about Judge Scott on a plaque.
We do have a survey of historic properties ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/cultural/pdfs/Historical-Resources-Survey-2003-rv.pdf[/url]). Our last update was taken 8 years ago. However, it is out of date and incomplete for most properties surveyed in the oldest parts of Davis, and non-existant for the city limits of Davis after 1945.
Just one example of a property which should be surveyed: the Haussler house on Renoir Avenue in Green Meadows. You may have seeen this house from Covell Blvd (near Birch Lane), due to its large, intact tankhouse, which is on the Renoir side. For those new to Davis–that is, those of you who moved here after the Johnson Administration–you might not know that the Hausslers have been an important farming family in the outskirts of Davis going back to before 1900. I don’t know if there were Haussler in this area at the time Davisville was founded. But given that German-sounding name, it would not surprise me. A lot of pioneer farmers in this area were Germans who had come for the Gold Rush, failed at that, and stayed around as farmers. My old football coach, Bud Henle, told me once that was the story of his ancestors in the Tremont area. Anyhow, it was the Hausslers who developed Green Meadows on part of their ranch as a real estate venture. And what later became Wild Horse was pretty much the rest of that ranch, which they had sold to the Duffel brothers.
[i]”PS–Is the water tank art cash still up for grabs?”[/i]
I believe all that money ($75,000) has been spent.
[i]”How much would it cost for a proper Davis inventory?”[/i]
I don’t know. The big need we have is to fill in those parts of the core which were passed over, and to catch those outliers here and there around town. My guess is that it would be less than $10,000, but it really depends on how detailed the research we pay for.
[i]”Shouldn’t it include the “area of influence” territory as well?”[/i]
I am not sure what the “area of influence” territory is?
The price of painting three benches? Or a few weeks of ZipCar giveaway cash (and whatever happened to city reporting on that project)? This sounds like peanuts, so I’d hope the council won’t have any trouble okaying quite a bit more for a top-notch survey once the funds get requested.
I mean the land just outside of the city limits. Are there sites of special connection to Davisville and our history that aren’t within our present boundaries (but could be some day)?
__________
The Hausslers also were long-time leaders with the soil and water conservation movement in Yolo County, promoting soil-saving cultural practices, flood-control measures and irrigation water methods before such conservation became so fashionable.
[i]”I mean the land just outside of the city limits.”[/i]
Ah. I don’t know for sure, but I think, because the city has no authority outside the city limits, we would never survey those properties. Yet, if you ever go out to Tremont Road (in Solano County south of El Macero), you will see there are plenty of historic homes. Same thing to the west and north of Davis in Yolo County. The juridiction for those properties is with Solano and Yolo County respectively. If either one were a part of the Certifield Local Government ([url]http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/clg/[/url]) program (which Davis is), they would have historic commissions and they would keep inventories. However, I don’t think either county is a CLG*.
*The CLG program is run by the National Park Service. The NPS awards grant money for things like historic surveys and restoration projects for publicly owned properties. If Davis funds an update to our survey, I suspect we will apply for a matching grant from the Park Service.
[quote]if it can be shown that he intentionally slow-played this process, that he did as little behind the scenes as he did in public, then Mr. Navazio is guilty of insubordination and should have his employment status terminated.—David Greenwald[/quote]I think this is ridiculous. Paul did exactly what he was asked to do by the council majority. He prepared scenarios for $2.5 million in immediate labor savings. He was working overtime to get this done.
Steve Pinkerton is city manager now, and has been working with on budget issue during August as well as this month. Whether or not to recommend postponing this issue is Steve Pinkerton’s call.
[quote]what we heard repeatedly from multiple sources is that the interim City Manager was telling employees not to worry; the council was going to back off of the September 30 deadline….David Greenwald[/quote]If this is true, it is probably because the swing vote in favor of the immediate reduction approach, Dan Wolk, said repeatedly in public that he intended to avoid lay-offs. Hence, it is not surprising that Paul would tell staff not to worry about lay-offs, in light of the fact that staff would obviously be extremely worried about lay-offs and Dan Wolk said said he wanted to avoid lay-offs.
We clearly need some dramatic labor cost reductions. We all agree with that.
But it has been my position all along that we need to do this through a combination of position reductions and reductions gained through the legally-required bargaining process. Stephen Souza also held this position as well, as did all the members of the Finance and Budget commission.
Not to mention Rich Rifkin, of course.
Dan Wolk voted that he wanted the reductions now, but wanted to avoid lay-offs. I didn’t think we could get the reductions without lay-offs, since it was mid-contract.
Given Dan Wolk’s disclaimer, I think that council direction is really up in the air.
The only disagreement is one of timing.
Clarification: Dan Wolk voted that he wanted the reductions now, but [b]said that[/b] he wanted to avoid lay-offs. I didn’t think we could get the reductions without lay-offs, since it was mid-contract.
Vanguard: “Whether people agree or not with the budget proposal put forth, the decision of the council is the final word and needs to be carried out, and failing that, Mr. Navazio’s services are no longer needed.”
woa! the vanguard is getting way out of control here, and in over its head.
“Correct me if I’m wrong….It’s my understanding that the report from Citygate is about the merger of the City and University fire departments and not just about staffing. “
That’s not what I have been led to believe.
“Paul did exactly what he was asked to do by the council majority. He prepared scenarios for $2.5 million in immediate labor savings. He was working overtime to get this done.”
If that’s the case, where are they? Where is even a partial funding solution to get the one million to fund road maintenance? There’s nothing there Sue because Paul didn’t do anything. Steve Pinkerton hasn’t been working on the budget since August. Steve Pinkerton hasn’t done anything on the budget and when he got here, he had to deal with water.
[quote]If that’s the case, where are they? Where is even a partial funding solution to get the one million to fund road maintenance? There’s nothing there Sue because Paul didn’t do anything. Steve Pinkerton hasn’t been working on the budget since August. Steve Pinkerton hasn’t done anything on the budget and when he got here, he had to deal with water.[/quote]
[quote]We need to be willing to find all of the facts in this matter. However, if it can be shown[/quote]
Which is it, you know or you don’t know?
To Rich Rifkin: It would seem to me “historical signage” is just as much “art” as anything else (and better than a lot of the so called “art” that has been paid too much for/been passed off as art by this town). You might want to approach the Civics Art Commission and have a discussion with them; or better yet approach the City Council about it. You make an excellent point…
[quote]I have to agree with Darth on this one.[/quote]
Ah, but Darth Vader is not running the city… the City Manager/City Council are… and apparently Darth Vader is not in command of all the facts (pardon my pun!)…
“Which is it, you know or you don’t know?”
Mr. Pinkerton flat out told me on September 9th he had not had a chance to really look at the budget. You imply contradiction where none exists.
[i]”You might want to approach the Civics Art Commission and have a discussion with them;”[/i]
I would not expect a positive response from the CAC in that what I am asking for is to remove one-third of their funding. That said, in the past, I have attended a couple of CAC meetings, asking them to dedicate some of their funds for art which depicts figures or events in Davis history. To that I got no positive response.*
[i]”… or better yet approach the City Council about it.”[/i]
I am in the process of trying to build support on the CC for just such a change. I should add that my proposal would not add any new costs to the city. It would change the allocation of funds from 3:o to 2:1 in favor of Civic Arts. When I broached this with one member of the CC, I got a less than positive response, suggesting I should instead seek out a new source of funds, not those now going to Civic Arts. However, I don’t think it is responsible, when we are cutting funds all over the place, to create a new expense for the City. So my favored position is simply a reallocation.
*The way the CAC usually works is they invite Davis artists to approach them and the artists propose projects which the CAC decides to fund or not at a level agreed to by both parties. As such, my suggestion that they fund something like a mural depicting how the Patwin tribe lived along Putah Creek before this region was settled by whites** falls on deaf ears, because I am not a painter.
**This region was (in theory) the territory of Spain from the early 1500s. However, it was not until the second half of the 18th Century that some Spaniards–notably the Franciscans, led by Father Serra–actually settled in what we call California. And as far as I know, there were never any Spanish settlements or military posts in what we know as Yolo County. When the Spanish empire began its collapse in the 1820s and Mexico and other territories gained their independence, this region for a short time became part of independent Mexico. But again, there were no Mexicans living in what is now the Davis-Vacaville area before the Vacas and Penas showed up in 1840 (less than a decade before the white Americans defeated Mexico in the Mexican-American War, which started in Texas). Prior to 1840, all along Putah Creek up to its origins in the Pacific Coast Range, Patwin Indians (aka Wintun Indians). One thing I have read they did in the Davis area was harvest salmon from Putah Creek. I think we would do well to honor them with a mural depicting that.
“Ah, but Darth Vader is not running the city… the City Manager/City Council are… and apparently Darth Vader is not in command of all the facts (pardon my pun!)…”
ERM, I agreed with David in that he said:
“if it can be shown” – which means I did not “demand” the “ouster” of an employee.”
I omitted the verb “lived” from this sentence:
“Prior to 1840, all along Putah Creek up to its origins in the Pacific Coast Range, Patwin Indians (aka Wintun Indians) … lived.”
I don’t have any idea how many Indians lived here. I recall reading that they were transient, spending time in the Davis area when fish were plentiful, but mostly residing up in the Coast Range.
One thing I know from reading “Guns, Germs, and Steel” by UCLA Prof. Jared Diamond is that the Indians of N. American, presumably including those in California, were 90% to 100% (depending on the tribe) wiped out by infectious diseases in the 16th and 17th Centuries. So it is not unlikely that by say, 1840, there were very few Indians living in our area. But certainly there were some.
[quote]ERM, I agreed with David in that he said:
“if it can be shown” – which means I did not “demand” the “ouster” of an employee.”[/quote]
Gotcha! 🙂
To Rich Rifkin: Did you approach THIS CITY COUNCIL? I think your idea has a lot of merit, with respect to signage and historical scenes. In regard to historic scenes, perhaps the way to go about this is to encourage artists to take up your ideas, and they can make proposals to the Civics Art Commission/City Council. One building in Woodland on Main Street has a beautiful mural of farm life depicted. It is quite inspiring – Davis should take a lesson… at least Davis has the lovely mural in the Post Office at Pole Line and Russell…
You could also approach the UCD Art Dept. as well – perhaps they might like to take a project like that on. Even Davis High School might… just a thought…
Oh, and Davis had that beautiful mural next to Ace Hardware until it got torn down – that still rankles w me…
I know how complicated budget cuts can be. I am sorry it’s like this; I wish it were easier.
Led by the Wagstaff Mayorship, we put into place the 3% at 50 that is killing public treasuries all over the state.
The Partansky Council added the 4th member to the long-standing 3-member fire crew model.
I was told on the City Council (2000-04) that the 4th member was an OSHA requirement; now I know that there is no such requirement, and never was. I don’t know what Julie and Ken and the others were told when they approved the 4th member.
Everyone I know in private or commercial life has been devestated by the economic “great recession” over the past 4 years. It is terrible for all concerned, and from my daily, cover to cover reading of the Wall Street Journal, no one thinks it will be much better for at least five years.
The City has to balance its books. Soon.
The voters are all having financial troubles, and we have not seen the kind of budget cutbacks by the city that need to happen.
[i]”I was told on the City Council (2000-04) that the 4th member was an OSHA requirement; now I know that there is no such requirement, and never was. I don’t know what Julie and Ken and the others were told when they approved the 4th member.”[/i]
The OSHA regulation which changed, and is still in place, today, is called 2-in, 2-out. It applies almost exclusively when there is a building on fire and firfighters must enter the burning structure to fight it. When that occurs, a single firefighter cannot enter the building by himself, because it is much safer if he enters with a colleague. The pair can then look after each other. On the outside, likewise, there must be a pair, who work in support of those inside, in case there is a collapse or other crisis. I think the idea is also that one of the two outside will work as the commanding officer for the whole group.
The reaction in Davis was, unfortunately, to increase our fire crews assigned to each truck from 3 to 4. That was completely unnecessary and has been a terrible waste of public resources.
Normally, I have been told (by leaders in our own fire department and by other city bigwigs) that when we have a serious structure fire in Davis–something which is quite rare if you look at all the fire calls–we will send far more than 4 people to the fire. If it is large enough–again, exceedingly rare–we will send all people available and bring in support from UC Davis and other area departments.
What that means is that it doesn’t make a difference in public safety to have only 3 men on a truck. Those first three who arrive can start fighting the fire immediately. They might have to wait a minute or two for a second truck to show up. Then we will have at least 6 on scene. With a minimum of four, they can enter the structure.
I also was informed recently (by a Butte County official) that most cities and counties which have the starndard 3 on a truck staffing model train their police officers or sheriff’s deputies as fire support personnel. So if they have a serious structure fire, and say there are people trapped inside, and only one truck with 3 men on it has arrived, a cop/deupty sheriff will serve as the fourth member of the crew until a second fire truck shows up.
I should add that a member of the current Davis City Council told me that he favors training more volunteers in Davis who could act as exterior support personnel when we have a serious structure fire. I don’t have an opinion on that idea, but whatever we do, we have to go back to the standard 3 men on a truck model. We cannot afford the $1.4 million per year extra it costs us to have that 4th man on board.
This OSHA letter ([url]http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22576[/url]) explains two-in, two-out more completely than I explained it above.
[i]”Led by the Wagstaff Mayorship, we put into place the 3% at 50 that is killing public treasuries all over the state.”[/i]
The big lie, which sold the 3% at 50 pension system, was that, because the stock market was hot, it would not cost the cities or counties which gave it much money at all.
The stock market regularly has stretches of bad years. So anyone who believed that it would never cost Davis much extra money was a fool to ahve approved it.
But another problem 3% at 50 has caused is the great expense of early retirements. Ed Mendel of CalPensions.com reported a few years ago that agencies which adopted 3% at 50 were experiencing earlier retirements from their workers. The average retiree (who was not disabled) retired 4.1 years younger than had been the case prior to 3% at 50.
Most of our problem with unfunded medical benefits is not due to those retirees in their late 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. The problem is with those in their late 40s, 50s and early 60s, because they tend to have spouses and children on their plans and they are not eligible for Medicare until age 65.
On top of that, they have to replaced in the workforce. So their replacement is costing Davis a full salary and a full schedule of benefits. That is arguably the worst problem that the 3% at 50 adoption caused Davis and other agencies who adopted it.
[i]”The big lie, which sold the 3% at 50 pension system …”[/i]
As far as I know, no one ever went to jail over this, but the lie being sold by CalPERS was the product of corruption. The big labor unions–especially the California Professional Firefighters and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen–manipulated the Board of CalPERS, putting unionists in position of influence. Those unionists, representing CalPERS, then went to the legislature and got people like Helen Thomson to vote in favor of SB 400 in 1999 ([url]http://calpensions.com/2010/07/27/sb400-pension-boost-uncanny-forecast-unheeded/[/url]), which changed the game ever since.
Thanks, Rich, for the excellent explanation of the history and current status of these issues.
A huge problem for the City Council is the lack of an independent researcher and labor negotiator who serves the CC, not the staff. Sue always asked for one, but it did not happen. So we always had the same staff members who benefited from the new contracts NEGOTIATING those same contracts with their staff colleagues. Sounds screwed up and screaming of conflicts? Absolutely. Looking back on it, the one area I think I screwed up in was the labor contracts and the process arriving at a deal.
I walked into a system that had been in place a long time, and I just did not have the experience and political authority as “the new kid on the block” to shake up the good old pals system that was in place. Sorry about that, to everyone.
[i]”So we always had the same staff members who benefited from the new contracts NEGOTIATING those same contracts with their staff colleagues.”[/i]
I agree that situation is not ideal. In addition to benefitting themselves in a pecuniary sense, the top managers doing the negotiating have to work with the other members of the staff after the process has concluded. So on one hand, if they are hard-asses, the other staff will likely hold a grudge against them. On the other hand, if they make expensive concessions, the staff they work with will benefit and will hold them in high regard. I thus think it is human nature, in that sort of arrangement, to conclude a process which makes people like you as opposed to making yourself despised. (I think this dynamic also happens in large, private corporations. It’s not just government. It is human nature. Most people like to be liked, particularly if they are spending someone else’s money.)
[img]http://cepco.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/davis_fred.jpg[/img]
All that said, another dependent factor is the personality of the City Manager or the HR Director. I have an uncle (pictured above–notice the family resemblance?) who was for almost 40 years the city manager of Chico. He is the toughest hombre you will ever come across. He flew bombing runs as a navigator over German-occupied France from 1942-1944 and then bombed Germany endlessly from 1944-45 in the Army Air Corps (before we had a US Air Force.) When he retired as CM in 1992, the cartoonist for the Chico Enterprise portrayed Uncle Fred as Patton, leading the City of Chico. So in a case like that, you don’t need an outside negotiator. That sort of city manager will always do the right thing for the taxpayers. He is not trying to make friends with the unions.
My guess is that Steve Pinkerton is the same sort of leader. The CM in Palo Alto, who has won a lot of fights with that city’s workers the last few years, is another.
[quote]One thing I know from reading “Guns, Germs, and Steel” by UCLA Prof. Jared Diamond is that the Indians of N. American, [b]presumably including those in California, were 90% to 100% (depending on the tribe) wiped out by infectious diseases in the 16th and 17th Centuries. [/b]So it is not unlikely that by say, 1840, there were very few Indians living in our area. But certainly there were some. [/quote]Such a history buff… Except for the rumor of Francis Drake in the 16-th, if I remenber my 4th grade history right, the Spaniards didn’t arrive until the 18th entury…
[i]”Except for the rumor of Francis Drake in the 16-th, if I remenber my 4th grade history right, the Spaniards didn’t arrive until the 18th entury …”[/i]
Juan Cabrillo beat Francis Drake by a decade. However, that has nothing to do with the mass die off of the Indians. They were killed all over North America and even more so in the Caribbean by infectious diseases brought over by the Spaniards starting in the late 15th C.
The diseases, especially small pox, travelled much faster than any of the explorers. Europeans, who of course died from their own diseases in some numbers, had over thousands of years built up resistances to them. But the red man had no biological defense. And so when small pox, typhus, measles, influenza, bubonic plague, cholera, malaria, tuberculosis, mumps, yellow fever, and whooping cough hit the Indians who lived in the Eastern part of the continent, they not only died, but they passed them on to the Indians in other nearby tribes. So by 1510, whole sections of what is now the U.S. were largely dead or dying, in spite of the fact that no whites had ever been there.
It was also the case, by the way, that the whites who travelled to the New World brought back Indian diseases and caused some limited die offs in Europe. A type of tuberculosis that had not yet been in Europe was one of these. However, Europeans had forms of TB (for thousands of years), so their die offs were not as ubiquitous.
The best comparison for a European die off was when the Black Plague arrived and killed roughly half of all people in Europe. (It was worse in some countries, less bad in others.) The Black Plague came from China. So not surprisingly, once trade was established along the Silk Road, a virulent Chinese disease came with it and started wiping out large parts of Europe in the mid 14th C. in just a couple of decades. Hundreds of years later a different form of the Plague moved from Europe to China and caused half of the people in Western China to die in about a 15 year time span.
[i]” the Spaniards didn’t arrive until the 18th entury …”[/i]
One more note about pre-Mexican whites living in what we call California. Around the time of Lewis & Clark (1803-ish), there were French and English fur trappers here in small numbers. But the largest single white ethnic group here, outside of the Spaniards, were the Russians. The Ruskies settled in Fort Ross in 1812. They probably travelled through Yolo County, but never settled it.
[quote]“Paul did exactly what he was asked to do by the council majority. He prepared scenarios for $2.5 million in immediate labor savings. He was working overtime to get this done.” — [b]Sue Greenwald[/b]
“If that’s the case, where are they? [b]– David Greenwald[/b][/quote]Paul has prepared the scenarios to the extent that anyone could. While labor contracts are in effect, the only option he has is to present lists of people to lay off, and give council various choices. If council votes to have him bring forward lists with the layoff suggestions to the next meeting, I am sure he will.
I say that council didn’t give clear direction because Dan, the third vote, voted for the $2.5 million in immediate general fund labor cost reductions but also said during open meetings that he wanted to avoid lay offs.
Aside for voluntary resignations and retirements, lay-offs are the [b]ONLY[/b] way to achieve labor cost reductions mid-contract (even “reorganization” means lay-offs if it is to save money), so council direction had some internal inconsistencies. Staff was faced with a split vote with a crucial disclaimer by the swing vote.
We can’t order staff to perform magic. We can’t order staff to cut $2.5 million in general fund expenditures mid-contract without resorting to large numbers of layoffs.
If a council majority wants Paul to bring back a long list of positions to lay off, we can do it tonight. We’ll just have to wait and see what direction council wants to take.
Another confusing typo from a dystypic councilperson. (I have trouble proofing unless I read my writing about an hour after type it, which you just can’t do in blog comments. I only correct the ones that make the sentences unreadable.)
What I meant to say is: Aside from voluntary resignations and retirements, lay-offs are the ONLY way to achieve labor cost reductions mid-contract (even “reorganization” means lay-offs if it is to save money), so council direction had some internal inconsistencies. Staff was faced with a split vote with a crucial disclaimer by the swing vote.
Word: Paul Navazio is back in Davis. His Roman holiday is over.
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KPoGmxI7E68/TnjgA8fplWI/AAAAAAAAAf8/67YHPDVZcUo/s1600/navazio.bmp[/img]
That’s cute, Rich. You should send a copy to him. Much deserved vacation I should add. He was working late into the night most of August. I know because he would call me in the evening to answer questions when he was tied up all day.
[quote] Paul did exactly what he was asked to do by the council majority. He prepared scenarios for $2.5 million in immediate labor savings. He was working overtime to get this done.” — [b]Sue Greenwald[/b]
“If that’s the case, where are they? — [b]David Greenwald[/b]
[/quote]Update. Paul got back from his vacation today (first this summer), and I confirmed that he did, as I said, prepare a detailed list of position lay-offs that would result in a $2.5 million general fund savings exactly as asked by council, and a $5 million all funds cut as well, which added volunteered by Paul.
It was Steve Pinkerton’s decision to recommend that they not be presented tonight. Council can always ask to see it next meeting, if a majority so desires.
[i]”That’s cute, Rich. You should send a copy to him.”[/i]
You are sure that Paul did not send that pic of him to me from Rome?
Did he?
No.