No sooner has the city proposed a realistic austerity budget that starts cutting into the type of city services that the residents have come to expect, but we hear talk about new revenues.
“Given that 84 percent of us voted ‘yes’ on a tax that needed just two-thirds approval, it’s clear the city didn’t ask for nearly enough money from residents who dearly cherish their parks and greenbelts and vast urban forest that stretches from one end of town to the other,” Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning wrote on June 14.
On Tuesday, there was a general agreement, both from the city manager as well as from people like Councilmember Dan Wolk, that in addition to the short-term fix with cuts, the city needs to be looking at additional revenue.
“We have to look at new revenue sources down the road,” City Manager Steve Pinkerton said.
“This community could embrace, as long as it were coupled with structural changes, I think this community could accept additional revenues measures. I think this community could accept an increased parks tax,” Dan Wolk argued.
To this I say, “woah horsie.”
There are practical and also philosophical problems with this approach.
In 2010 and now 2012, the Vanguard did not oppose the city’s efforts to renew first their half-cent sales tax and second their parks tax measure.
In a way, these were promissory notes from the voters – an act of faith that the new council and city management would be more responsible with our tax dollars than the past councils.
Indeed, as the Vanguard‘s research has shown, the original half-cent sales tax passed in 2004 by the voters was supposed to go to prevent the loss of city services like parks and other services. Instead it went, in its entirety, to a 36% salary increase for firefighters.
We did not oppose the passage of the parks tax because (a) it was strictly a renewal, and (b) we took it on faith that this city council would clean up the fiscal house.
This week we explored the impact of cafeteria cash out, which is costing the city $1.7 million over and above what it would cost to cap at the $500 per month level, and also the impact of retiree health which will consume 25% of the city’s payroll.
We would not have to think about service cuts and outsourcing city services if we had our fiscal house in order. But we certainly should not be talking about revenue when the city is paying $15,000 in health care for people the age of 55 to retire.
The reason that 84% of the voters supported the parks tax is that it was a strict renewal, it was only $49, and only Thomas Randall opposed it. Numbers are misleading when there is no organized and credible campaign run against a proposal.
There was no one talking about the city’s unfunded liability, about the amount of money we are paying for health care, for pensions, for salaries, or about the fact that we for years had a huge and growing deferred maintenance backlog and yet claimed to have a balanced budget.
So, do not look at the results of that election and think, oh we could have asked for more – because that margin of victory would have closed fast with real numbers put out on the table. The voters really do not know the extent of the problem.
There is a reason that we cut $7 to $8 million from the budget with almost no fanfare. The hard and heavy lifting is still to come, but the public really has no idea that the loss of tree trimming services is probably just the start.
But there is more on the horizon. Last night, the school district put a parcel tax measure on the ballot for November asking for $446 should the governor’s budget not pass. If it does pass, it is a straight-up renewal of Measure A.
Some people have indicated that voters in Davis are suffering from tax fatigue and no one can blame them for that. The voters will have to make a determination if the current problems facing the district – which are serious and quite severe – warrant another time entering into the public’s collective wallet.
At some point the voters will say no. Now it turns out that few things that the city offer the taxpayers rank up there with schools, but parks are at least close.
However, until the city fixes the structural problems, the problems with the cafeteria cash out, retiree health, and pensions, the voters should be pressing the city to fix those rather than looking to new revenue.
The other problem that faces the city – and we do not yet know when but at some point the city is planning to ask the voters for a chunk of money for the surface water project. It may be in November, although I still think April is more likely, but that’s a chunk of money that will go into the voter’s willingness to fund an additional parks parcel tax.
Long term, I think the city has to look at diversifying its economic revenue portfolio, though it is worth noting that communities that have much more retail and a larger sales tax base were hurting just as badly as Davis and, in most cases, a lot more.
The Vanguard was willing to hold its fire in 2010 and 2012 on the tax measures, in hopes that the city could get its act together, but it will not support new revenue without reform. We need to reform the way we do city services and reform the way we compensate those who provide those city services.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]At some point the voters will say no.[/i]
That would be now.
Neither of us know that to be true.
With people continuing to claim that the City and schools have been irresponsible in their management of the money we have approved in the past and are voting irresponsibly regarding utility rates (fraudulent, is the term repeatedly used), don’t you think people will eventually vote no for schools, for city utilities, for parks and rec? Maybe the City should lay off a bunch of fire fighters and return the money to the general fund before asking for more money – is that what you think should happen?
I think we have to separate the city and schools, because at least in my opinion, the schools have had their act together the last five years. Their problem has been the loss of state funding. The city is now where the schools were in 2008.
“That would be now.” -Neutral
I beg to differ. Doing nothing is not an option; the status quo is untenable. We have no choice but to cut spending and services, increase revenue, or a combination of the two. Option #1, will lead to an unacceptable downward spiral in our quality of life.
I support Dan Wolk’s choice of option #3. And I predict the community is going to get behind it.
-Michael Bisch
This and a few other comments from the new council member Wolk give me the impression that he either does not completely get it, or else he is a bit too cosy with city workers to be completely objective. The only viable solution for long-term revenue increases is economic development to expand our tax base. Prior to us seeing any increases inflows from an expanded tax base, our only viable solution is to cut our spending. For cutting our spending, the only viable solution is to reduce the city workforce, and roll back pay and benefits to private market compensation levels. Councilman Wolk should not be delivering any false hope that there is any less painful way to do this. Yes, it took years for us to get to this point, but when the point is a looming financial cliff you need to stop Wolking (pun intended) toward it… and start retreating to a point of safety.
Things with the state budget are likely to get worse. Does the new council have an adequate sense of urgency about our fiscal problems?
I should also point out that a twist on the 3 options that I’ve laid out is to privatize some services that the public sector is currently providing to achieve cost savings without cutting services. I’m in no position to gauge the potential savings, nor the impact on service quality.
-Michael Bisch
On the question of how the public will vote on tax on tax increases, don’t forget that the State is asking for the same. And, the national government just got handed a SCOTUS gift approving the largest middle-class tax increase ever. I agree with Ryan Kelly. I think it is a waste of time looking toward tax increases. I agree with Michael Bisch that we should be looking to privatize some services to cur expenses.
We all care about city employees and do not want them harmed, but we cannot afford to make them a charity case. If there are less expensive ways to provide our needed services, it should be a key performance requirement that our elected officials and city manager pursue them. We should be doing this constantly… even when the economy is good and budgets are balanced.
for an economic recovery, the situation sure looks grim, doesn’t it?
btw: stockton just filed for bankrupcy – the largest city in US history.
vanguard: “I think we have to separate the city and schools, because at least in my opinion, the schools have had their act together the last five years. Their problem has been the loss of state funding. The city is now where the schools were in 2008.”
DSHS having 3 vice principals and an assistant to the VP is “having their act together” – the valley oak debacle is “having their act together.”
No school needs 3 vice principals and an assistant to the VP, I don’t care how these “never seen a school tax they don’t like” enablers feel.
Jeff, where have you been? Good to see you back.
Mike Bisch: [i]”We have no choice but to cut spending and services, increase revenue, or a combination of the two.”[/i]
We have other choices. One is to make our spending more efficient. The CM is attempting to do that–maybe attempting is too soft a term here; change that to accomplishing that–by outsourcing the tree trimming positions. If successful, that will improve services at less cost.
Another choice is to maintain the status quo by controlling the growth in the cost of labor. In effect, this is another way of making the spending more efficient. It is achieving the same level of services for less money (in real, as opposed to nominal dollars).
And yet another way of improving efficiencies is to lay off or to not replace employees who are not needed to maintain the same levels of service. An example of that is moving to a 3-per-truck fire staffing model, which is what Davis historically had and what most cities our size in California now have.
Unfortunately, in its nasty and zealous campaign to attack Sue Greenwald, the Chamber of Commerce lost sight of what needs to be done to improve Davis, and this blindness appears to be ongoing.
[i]”btw: stockton just filed for bankrupcy – the largest city in US history.”[/i]
Stockton is uique among California cities because from 2007 (after home prices in Stockton had already started to fall precipitously in price) to 2009, its City Council began a big borrowing campaign, greatly raising Stockton’s level of bond debt. This borrowing was done on the heals of the borrowing Stockton did to build its big new basketball/hockey arena and its lovely professional baseball stadium and its upgrades to its marina.
But Stockton is not unique in how, during the decade from 2000-2009, it greatly increased the total compensation it paid to its workforce with large salary raises, much larger raises in the costs of its medical and dental benefits packages, and even larger raises in the costs of its pension payments. Almost every city and almost every county in California followed Stockton’s pattern with regard to labor cost inflation.
And for that reason, almost every city and every county is now on the road to bankruptcy, including Davis and including Yolo County. I hope that most cities and counties will never have to file for bankruptcy.
One way most are going to avoid that outcome is by providing much worse services and by screwing over the poor. We have seen the latter two in Davis (not maintaining our roads) and Yolo County (eliminating mental health care and other health programs which benefit the poor).
The other way to avoid bankruptcy–hopefully what Davis and other agencies will do–is to deflate our long-term labor costs and to make our labor more efficient.
Seeing that Jeff Boone is commenting on this thread, I think it needs to be repeated what he has long said: We also need to substantially reduce the amount of time we pay public employees for not working. They get way too much paid vacation time and holiday time. That is an expense we cannot afford.
[quote]its nasty and zealous campaign to attack Sue Greenwald[/quote]From the folks I’ve talked to, ‘financial stewardship’ was [u][b]not[/b][/u] the issue that many used as the metric to vote for a candidate other than Ms Greenwald.
[quote]“Unfortunately, in its nasty and zealous campaign to attack Sue Greenwald, the Chamber of Commerce lost sight of what needs to be done to improve Davis, and this blindness appears to be ongoing.”[/quote]I’m not sure what this comment has to do with anything else you’re discussing here, efficient spending and 3-per-truck staffing. Is the chamber against what you’re proposing?
Sue won’t be around to help, but others will be. That’s because we voted for the other folks.
The election is over. Michael B. seems to be in alignment with your ideas; what ongoing blindness do you see?
[i]”No school needs 3 vice principals and an assistant to the VP, I don’t care how these “never seen a school tax they don’t like” enablers feel.”[/i]
I generally agree with Rusty here. However, there is one thing to consider about Davis High School: Its scale.
Many cities our size have two all-purpose high schools. We have one, Davis Sr. High.* So there we have 4 top admins (1 principal, 3 vice principals) for 1,672 students. If we had instead two all-purpose high schools, they would probably have 1 principal and 1 VP each, and that would likely cost us more than 1 + 3 at the single high school.
I certainly don’t know enough to say that Davis High could scale back to 2 vice principals. But I suspect that if they had to, they could make that work.
*If I recall correctly, the 7th-12th grade Da Vinci Charter Academy has a principal, Rody Boonchouy, and a VP, Scott Bell (who also teaches Social Studies) for its 490 students.
“for an economic recovery, the situation sure looks grim, doesn’t it? “
The recovery is not robust and it does not help that tax revenue, which is what we rely on, is a lagging rather than a leading indicator of recovery.
“btw: stockton just filed for bankrupcy – the largest city in US history.”
I’m hoping to get city manager Pinkerton on the record, he actually left Stockton because the signs were on the wall. I have a brief explanation of this in yesterday’s transparency story.
“DSHS having 3 vice principals and an assistant to the VP is “having their act together” – the valley oak debacle is “having their act together.” “
Since that’s not an accurate description of the situation, it’s not an example of anything.
Well, there’s always economic development to try and spur revenue. So maybe getting the changes to the development agreement that governs the pads near Target would be a starting point. But it looks like the slowdown there might be….the DDBA:
[url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/city/developer-feels-city-parcels-off-target/[/url]
[b]Mike Bisch: “We have [u]no choice[/u] but to cut spending and services, increase revenue, or a combination of the two.” [/b]
JS: [i]”The election is over. Michael B. seems to be in alignment with your ideas; what ongoing blindness do you see?”[/i]
Read Mike Bisch’s “no choice” comment. He and [i]The Pope of Greenwaldless Village[/i] repeated this in their anti-Sue attacks many times. It was wrong then and wrong now. They were blinded by their hatred of Sue, which was largely based on personalities, not real issues. At least that is what Bisch told me, that his hatred of Sue was personal.
[img]http://content7.flixster.com/photo/11/80/57/11805773_gal.jpg[/img]
Rich: Davis High does not have three Vice Principals, it has two and a part time third one who doubles as the librarian. And as you note, that’s for 1700 students, which basically means the full time VPs are responsible for 680 students each (which is the size of an elementary school).
Since that’s not an accurate description of the situation, it’s not an example of anything.
umm, since it is a description of the situation…. this point is moot.
The recovery is not robust and it does not help that tax revenue, which is what we rely on, is a lagging rather than a leading indicator of recovery.
or maybe it just isnt there the way administration supporters have claimed. and as elaine demonstrated earlier – the “recovery” or “recession” can be claimed and data can be massaged to support whichever politicians you want in office.
And as you note, that’s for 1700 students, which basically means the full time VPs are responsible for 680 students each (which is the size of an elementary school).
which we cannot afford right now.
but this argument has dragged on too long and gotten too off track. Why the vanguard needed to write multiple paragraphs when its position can be summed up as follows:
“I’m against talk of other taxes or water proposals that are going to interfere with any upcoming school parcel taxes in november. Those come first because I support schools above all else.”
See, that wasn’t so hard was it?
David Vincent Van Gogh: [i]”Davis High does not have three Vice Principals. It has two and a part time third one who doubles as the librarian.”[/i]
It lists three on its website: Sheila Smith, Vice Principal; Tom McHale, Vice Principal; and Stacy Desideri, Vice Principal.
From what I was told, Ms. Desideri is not “the librarian.” She is a called a “Library Media Teacher,” and I would guess then that the issue is that she is being paid as a Vice Principal, much like Mr. Bell is being paid at Da Vinci, where he also teaches Social Studies.
I’m interested in the research you have done in the last week on this point Mr. Octane. You state we cannot afford that right now, please explain the jobs that they perform and how a smaller staff can handle what they presently handle. I look forward to your answer and further discussion.
Octane…LOL
Yup, I think that pretty much sums it up.
lol rusty thank you.
vanguard – you admitted on the other post we should not have more than one vp per school – and I stomped all over that with the facts. Now you want to indian give that position because it doesn’t make the school board look good. Nice try.
I did not
I made the comment on another thread that the idea of a budget advisory commission (BAC), such as Manteca used, had merit, and your (David’s) response was that the F&B commission could fulfill that role. But I think that a BAC might have some advantages.
The existing F&B has been functioning through the last years of budget issues. I’m not saying the F&B is part of the problem, just that they’ve been weighing in on the budget already.
I don’t know if it’s mandate includes a major review of budget priorities, recommendations for compensation and contract changes, and so on.
A new BAC of limited duration could include experts willing to advise for a fixed time period, less than the commitment of a term on a commission. That might make some experts more willing to participate.
Finally, special commissions (such as the WAC) with specific mandates get more publicity and public input.
If the city of Davis is going to make major budget revisions, the public should be involved. Public comment at city council meetings isn’t the way to go about that. Getting people upset about specific line items isn’t effective or efficient. 9 tree trimmers got public outcry, but there are other positions being axed. Like the HESC and the WAC, a special budget commission could provide the vehicle for the public conversation that needs to occur.
Jeff Boone
Welcome back Jeff ! I must say I am rather disappointed though. I thoroughly scrutinized your post and could not find anything objectionable enough to mount my usual disavowal of your position. Please forgive my momentary weakness and rest assured that I very much appreciate your return and vow to do better in the future.
JB: [i]”the national government just got handed a SCOTUS gift approving the largest middle-class tax increase ever.”[/i]
It is a mistake to confuse real dollars with nominal dollars. I don’t know in real dollars what the largest middle-income tax increase ever was. However, I know that in the early days of the income tax, it did not cost most American families anything. It was principally a tax on the upper income. Over time, increases in prosperity moved half or more of the country into the income-tax paying brackets. So surely one of the increases in income tax rates was, effectively, the largest tax increase ever on those who were middle-income.
Another possibility was the creation of Social Security taxes. Or maybe the doubling of the Social Security tax during the Reagan years.
In this column the Vanguard comments as follows:
In a way, these were promissory notes from the voters – an act of faith that the new council and city management would be more responsible with our tax dollars than the past councils.”
“
“We would not have to think about service cuts and outsourcing city services if we had our fiscal house in order.”
“We did not oppose the passage of the parks tax because (a) it was strictly a renewal, and (b) we took it on faith that this city council would clean up the fiscal house.”
————————————————————-
It appears to be that the actions or recommendations of senior city staff on a number of issues are too much a part of our ongoing staffing costs.
Cell towers
PERB
Attorney fees
Losses on housing projects
DACHA coverup
Fire Department coverup
Water Needs
Seems like a lot of staffing time and legal costs are consumed in rectifying bad decisions. Yet there never appears to be any consequences?
Looking at revenue.
We would have had at least $5 million in a permanent affordable housing fund if senior staff and the City Attorney had done their jobs.
But we don’t and those people are still there.
Are senior staff and the City Attorney at-will employees? If not should could they be?
David Thompson
[quote][b]Slow Down on the New Revenue Talk[/b]….To this I say, “whoa, horsie”…There are practical and also philosophical problems with this approach.[/quote]“New revenue” needs to be a part of these considerations. Trying to generate more business and looking at tax increases (sales tax increases, more parcel taxes, etc.) ought to be considered along with spending cutbacks.
We want Davis to be special. We need to stop whining that it costs money to keep it that way.
With respect to the 2004 sales tax increase–supposedly sold as a means to save city parks and other services, then spent instead, “in its entirety, to a 36% salary increase for firefighters”–we know who to blame for that alleged mismanagement.
I’m not sure you’ve tracked the misdirection of funds (just a coincidental amount?) since we obviously maintained too many other city services as well since 2004. In any case, we’ve gotten rid of everyone of the council members responsible–too bad it took so long. The new council shouldn’t have to avoid the option of considering new revenue just because the past members were lying hoodlums.
“I’m not sure you’ve tracked the misdirection of funds (just a coincidental amount?) since we obviously maintained too many other city services as well since 2004. “
You make an interesting point. I would not suggest it’s a misdirection of funds. I would suggest it’s a misappropriation of funds.
The sales tax was sold as a way to maintain service in the face of state funding cutbacks. We then immediately agreed to a huge contract increase with the firefighters.
We maintained programs as you suggest because the property tax revenue increased double digits each year between 2004 and 2007. It was only in 2008 when the bubble burst that we had problems.
If the City puts that big, expensive surface water project on the same ballot as the Harris Plan (Modified) Parcel Tax for the schools, you can kiss both of them goodbye.
People are pissed, and suspicious of government. With good reason, so far as the City is concerned.
A voter votes HECK NO on the first item, water rate increases, and it is easy, really easy, to go to the next one and sourly vote NO to the new school parcel tax.
Trust me.
Did you see Bob Dunning’s column today? He made valid points that November is too soon. Push the water project vote back, get it right, and see how it does with the voters. What’s a few months? If the City pushes it, without a thorough analysis, the average voter is going to ask: “So, they are rushing us like they did last year with those fraudulent rate increases. NOW what are they trying to hide?”
And ERM and Matt, please dont go down that false “the sky is falling and we will lose $50 million due to added expenses” like you guys did last fall. Please.
Frankly, from a litigation/political strategy campaign analysis, I should sit back, let the CC majority that gave us the false rates last year rush it to a November ballot, and watch the voters kill it for all the reasons I talk about. I could have done the same thing last November and let Mayor Joe force it onto the June ballot, but I chose instead to work with Rochelle Swanson and Dan Wolk to get the motion they made that set the WAC in motion.
But, I am hopeful that the WAC and new CC will do the right thing this summer, and extend the analysis time to get it right.
BTW, I still have serious doubts that we even need a project, but I can be convinced.
Statements by Michael Bisch posted on the Vanguard:
[quote]“Before the bicycle advocates have an aneurysm, I’d like to clarify that my comments regarding bicycle rack utilization are all tongue-in-cheek.”-[b]-Michael Bisch[/b][/quote]
[quote]“Excuse me a moment while I change my tie-dye shirt and make myself a cup of Yogi tea.” –[b]Michael Bisch[/b][/quote]
Do statements like this show respect for the patrons of downtown businesses? Does the DDBA think that this is acceptable behavior from a co-president?
[quote]At some point the voters will say no. Now it turns out that few things that the city offer the taxpayers rank up there with schools, but parks are at least close.
The other problem that faces the city – and we do not yet know when but at some point the city is planning to ask the voters for a chunk of money for the surface water project. It may be in November, although I still think April is more likely, but that’s a chunk of money that will go into the voter’s willingness to fund an additional parks parcel tax…[/quote]
So in other words delay the surface water project decision until after November, because it might endanger the passage of an additional parks parcel tax and a schools parcel tax…
[quote]I made the comment on another thread that the idea of a budget advisory commission (BAC), such as Manteca used, had merit, and your (David’s) response was that the F&B commission could fulfill that role. But I think that a BAC might have some advantages. [/quote]
I’m the one that suggested that the F&B Commission already fills that role. As Chair of the WAC and as a member of TAG, and as the Chair of the HESC can tell you, to form and staff an advisory commission takes huge amounts of staff time and many hours from volunteers. It is a difficult process, and the advisory commission’s decisions come under fire just as much as that of a commission or City Council. It is not something that should be undertaken lightly or for every issue that comes up. The City Manager has only just begun getting Davis’ fiscal house in order and he certainly doesn’t seem to be sweeping things under the rug as former City Manager Bill Emlen did. Let’s give Pinkerton and the new City Council a chance… I see no reasons to distrust their motives or method to date…
[quote]but this argument has dragged on too long and gotten too off track. Why the vanguard needed to write multiple paragraphs when its position can be summed up as follows:
“I’m against talk of other taxes or water proposals that are going to interfere with any upcoming school parcel taxes in november. Those come first because I support schools above all else.”
See, that wasn’t so hard was it?[/quote]
Spot on! And on another point, my high school contained 1800 students, and we had one Principal and one VP and we got along just fine…
[quote]On the question of how the public will vote on tax on tax increases, don’t forget that the State is asking for the same. And, the national government just got handed a SCOTUS gift approving the largest middle-class tax increase ever…
We all care about city employees and do not want them harmed, but we cannot afford to make them a charity case. If there are less expensive ways to provide our needed services, it should be a key performance requirement that our elected officials and city manager pursue them. We should be doing this constantly… even when the economy is good and budgets are balanced.[/quote]
Well said Jeff! And welcome back!
“So in other words delay the surface water project decision until after November, because it might endanger the passage of an additional parks parcel tax and a schools parcel tax…”
That would appear to be a fabrication on your part since I didn’t say that
“my high school contained 1800 students, and we had one Principal and one VP and we got along just fine…”
Your statement is completely lacking in foundation. We don’t know what it means to be just fine or whether it was just fine. We also don’t know to what extent changes in circumstances over the last forty five yrs render any comparison null and void. In other words even accepting your declaration as fact does not mean dhs would be “just fine” under a similar arrangement.
The WAC voted 9-0 for some type of conjunctive use project, meaning surface water needs to come from somewhere to supplement our wells.
Giv ethe WAC time to work this through to a specific project, give the experts time to develop a fair rate structure, make sure you have a specific EIR for that project, put it all on the ballot, and see if the voters go for it.
The longer you put it off, the higher the chances of our local economy recovering, and the greater the likelihood that a new project might pass.
To me, as a litigator, rushing to the jury when you are clearly not ready is madness. Now that the project proponents have had to fall back from the bogus Sept 6 rates, those beneficiaries of the hundreds of millions to be spent on the project should get it right, and put it on the ballot.
The voters simply will not go for another half-baked project and questionnable rates.
Give the Harris Plan a shot at the November ballot, and we can deal with the water project next year.
[i]”My high school contained 1800 students, and we had one Principal and one VP and we got along just fine …”[/i]
Did you mean to say that your high school had one thousand-eight hundred students? Or did you mean to qualify that in the 1800 AD, the last year of the John Adams administration, your high school had students?
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/US_Navy_031029-N-6236G-001_A_painting_of_President_John_Adams_(1735-1826),_2nd_president_of_the_United_States,_by_Asher_B._Durand_(1767-1845)-crop.jpg[/img]
Van Gogh: [i]”We also don’t know to what extent changes in circumstances over the last forty five yrs render any comparison null and void.”[/i]
Maybe you should write a Vanguard piece asnwering the question: What has changed over the decades which requires Davis High to have more and more high-paid top administrators, including one principal, two full-time vice principals, another part-time vice principal, and another asistant vice principal? Is it entirely a matter of the size of the student body? (Today there are not that many more kids at DHS than we had when I graduated in 1982–we had 512 students in my graduating class; this year they had 546.) Is it regulatory, meaning state rules have made administration more complicated and thus it takes more people to administer programs? Is it cultural, meaning the District desires a lower Student:VP ratio so that kids will have a more personal experience with their administration? Or is it similar to the way the City of Davis has taken clerical jobs and made them highly paid by changing the titles to something else which sounds much more deserving of a high salary? I would not doubt it is some of all of those things. It does seem like something the Vanguard should look into. Maybe you could get the opinions of some teachers at Davis High who have a perspective on the need for so much money going into administration?
Lou Grant lives: “a Vanguard piece [u]asnwering[/u] the question.”
Make that ‘answering the question.’
David M. Greenwald
06/29/12 – 10:52 AM
…
“btw: stockton just filed for bankrupcy – the largest city in US history.”
I’m hoping to get city manager Pinkerton on the record, he actually left Stockton because the signs were on the wall. I have a brief explanation of this in yesterday’s transparency story.
Yes, Mr. Pinkerton knew all along that Stockton was headed for the abyss. He tried to tell everyone but they wouldn’t listen. After 16 years his conscience wouldn’t allow him to stay anymore. What an honorable man.
I think you are being misled my Mr. Pinkerton’s revisionist history story. You do know he was in charge of Stockton’s failed 129 million water front project, Right?
Elaine
“my high school contained 1800 students, and we had one Principal and one VP and we got along just fine…”
We seem to have had quite different experiences. My high school, from which I graduated in 1970, had 2000 students, one principle, one vice principle and far too few counselors. mine met with me a sum total of once, told me I could be anything I wanted to be, and left it at that. No further help at all. I can guarantee you that I did not do ” just fine” coming out of high school and I suspect many others who did not have educated, well informed, proactive parents did not do well either.
I think our anecdotes are prime examples of what David is referring to when he rightfully states that there is limited applicability of our experiences of many years ago to what the kids are experiencing, and what is needed in our schools today.
Mike Harrington
“To me, as a litigator, rushing to the jury when you are clearly not ready is madness”
As a litigator, would you not have expected that someone who claimed that the did not believe anything that any lawyer said until proven to their personal satisfaction might have already been removed from the jury pool ?
“BTW, I still have doubts that we need the project…..”
This despite the fact as you noted that the vote was “9-0 for some kind of conjunctive use project ….”
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it does not sound as though you are very amenable to convincing, regardless of how many hours, how much diligence has gone into the work of the WAC, and what their factual findings are. It seems to me very hard to convince someone who does not want to be convinced no matter what the objective evidence may show.
I
Medwoman: The WAC voted … I did not. I am not convinced we need a project right now. Their vote was NOT to get a project on the ballot, but that a conjunctive use project should be looked at by the City at some point. But I can be convinced, with the right data. Just havent seen anything reasonable yet.
I attended the WAC last night, and stayed for part of the consultant’s report on comparing projects. Their assumptions as to water usage were completely bogus: way, way, way too high, and not helpful. Someone on the WAC should provide the detail, but their water consumption numbers, and therefore the demand, and therefore the size of the project, and therefore the expense, was completely laughable. Go ahead, put THAT one on the ballot!
You can read the report on the WAC page of the City web site.
The water project proponents, led by Saylor and his sprawl developer and water union contractor friends, are going to have to do a lot better if they want a project the voters will approve.
Rifkin
“Today there are not that many more kids at DHS”
Well that depends on what the optimal ratio of kids to ” adminstrators” is and also presupposes that the adminstrators are performing exactly the same functions as they did 30 years ago. I agree with you that this might be a good topic for the Vanguard to explore. Or, you are very good at amassing information. Perhaps you would have time to write a piece on this ?
By the way, are you feeling better now ?
Also, I think it is mandatory that the water project, when/if there is a good design that makes sense for Davis, should be run past all of the relevant commissions, just like the Measure J/R projects have been.
Let Finance and Budget wizards with the sharp pencils and green shades on crunch those assumptions and numbers for paying for the project.
The Natural Resources Commission should weigh in on the environmental impacts of sucking up all of that river water.
These two are just examples.
I know that the water project proponents want to short circuit the city process, but we should not let them do it. It would be bad for Davis. There is no water supply emergency; the ground wells are fine; there is no need to rush into anything for some years.
[i]”…the ground wells are fine; there is no need to rush into anything for some years.”
[/i]
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Don: Yes I do.
Sue, Don, Rich, newsflash, the election is over. Positiveness 1 bitterness 0.
-Michael Bisch
No, Mike H… Your statement that “the ground wells are fine” is incorrect on many levels. The notion that we can wait “many years” is not accepted by the experts that have testified before the WAC.
On this topic you have repeatedly demonstrated that you will ignore any expert evidence and will make statements that are patently, provably false. Called on it, you will vilify those you disagree with and threaten referendums and lawsuits.
Michael Bisch: please let us know how quickly the DDBA will decide whether the changes at the Target site are acceptable to your membership.
1) Rich, you still have the Sue-thing clouding your perception. Your reading weird interpretations into my postings. There’s still very little to no daylight between your position and mine on fiscal matter.
2) Don, you spent 3 months railing against Target and Folsom-type malls. Now you appear to favor the developer gutting the development provisions prohibing a Folsom-type mall. Not quite sure what you’re advocating for now. Please note that I have not taken any provision on the developer application.
3) Sue, “tongue-in-cheek” indicates there’s humor involved. Are you going to spend the rest of your days engaged in bitter retribution? If you want me off the DDBA board, open up a downtown business and vote me off the board.
-Michael Bisch
Don, please let us know as quickly as possible why you went from railing against Folsom-type suburban malls and championing the downtown and Davis neighbor malls to advocating against them.
-Michael Bisch
No, Michael, I just spent three months listening to you go on about the urgency of economic development. And all during that time, when specific ideas were put forward, among those I (and Mark West, if I may be so bold as to cite him) agreed with was loosening the requirements on the four pads at Second Street Crossing (Target).
Now the developer has proposed loosening the requirements there. Here is what the Enterprise reports:
[i]“We did not want a regional shopping center (when Target was first proposed),” said Beth Annon-Lovering, owner of B&L Bike Shop, 610 Third St. “We wanted a community shopping center. If the spaces get too small out there it takes businesses from the downtown and that’s the last thing … as a member of the DDBA or as a business owner downtown, I want to see.
“We’re having a hard enough time to fill the spaces that go vacant downtown and to open up a bunch of small spaces out along the freeway it will decimate our downtown.”[/i]
Beth and her husband Tom Lovering strongly supported Target (Tom hosted the victory celebration at Cabo). Now when it might actually compete with downtown stores, she is worried it will “decimate our downtown.”
So the inconsistent one here, Michael Bisch, is you. Economic development is urgent? Then let’s have the DDBA get out of the way, endorse the developer’s changes, and get going. Eh?
RICH, Class of 1982: [i]”Is it cultural, meaning the District desires a lower Student:VP ratio so that kids will have a more personal experience with their administration?”[/i]
Class of 1970: [i]”Well that depends on what the optimal ratio of kids to “adminstrators” is … “[/i]
Precisely.
Rich: [i]”Is it regulatory, meaning state rules have made administration more complicated and thus it takes more people to administer programs?”[/i]
Class of 1970: [i]”… and also presupposes that the adminstrators are performing exactly the same functions as they did 30 years ago.”[/i]
I did not mean to [i]presuppose[/i] that. I simply asked David to ask the question if the functions changed. I suspect they have and said as much. (“I would not doubt it is some of all of those things.”)
Class of 1970: [i]”I agree with you that this might be a good topic for the Vanguard to explore.”[/i]
Danke, Frau Doktor. Merci, femme médecin. Ευχαριστώ, κυρία γιατρό.
Class of 1970: [i]”Perhaps you would have time to write a piece on this?”[/i]
I’d rather David did the work and then Michael Bisch and Kemble The Pope of Greenwaldless Village could make up some misleading ads about it.
[i]”By the way, are you feeling better now?[/i]
Yes, thank you. I was told to expect to be in a lot of pain in the days after surgery. I was prescribed Vicoden and 600 mg Ibuprofen. But I never had anything more than soreness and I took no analgesics.
The hardest part has been to not do my normal excercise routine, letting the internal wound heal. Like with any ill-health situation, the experience has renewed my appreciation for not being sick (even though I had no feeling of sickness before my hydrocelectomy).
Don: I don’t think you should blame Michael B. for the comments of another downtown business owner. I think he has been rather consistent with his comments, so judge those and don’t muddy the waters by applying Beth Annon-Lovering’s opinions to Michael.
The core region is not large enough to provide for all of the retail shopping needs for the City. It is time we stop acting to ‘protect’ the downtown, and instead start thinking about what is best for the City as a whole. It is not an all or nothing situation. We can increase the retail options in town without destroying the core, but not with a downtown or nothing approach.
If it is true, as Beth A. claims, that “[i]We’re having a hard enough time to fill the spaces that go vacant downtown…[/i]” then perhaps the property owners need to lower their rents, improve their buildings, or redevelop their sites. Lower rents, or better buildings will result in full occupancy. That is how the market works. Artificially blocking retail development elsewhere in town is how we ended up with our current deficiency in shopping options in town, and the resulting sales tax leakage to the surrounding communities. We cannot afford to continue this approach.
In principle I agree with you, Mark. The existing neighborhood centers can provide retail options, and Second Street crossing qualifies as a neighborhood center.
Here is what the developer is proposing for changes to the development agreement for Second Street Crossing: [url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/TargetPadproposal.pdf[/url]
There’s nothing in it that particularly concerns me. I was nonplussed back during the Target debate when the specific development agreements were described to me. They sounded like they had been negotiated to protect certain retailers. I assume DDBA was involved at the time, but I don’t know for sure. I think a T.J. Maxx would be a great addition to Davis shopping options.
Don, try and keep your personal anismosity in check. I’ve never met Beth, yet you pin her comments on me. As I previously said, the election is over.
-Michael Bisch
Don, I have yet to hear someone opposing a TJ Maxx opening in Davis. It’s really unclear to me what you’re railing against here today.
-Michael Bisch
[i]”Welcome back Jeff ! I must say I am rather disappointed though. I thoroughly scrutinized your post and could not find anything objectionable enough to mount my usual disavowal of your position. Please forgive my momentary weakness and rest assured that I very much appreciate your return and vow to do better in the future.”[/i]
Medwoman,
LOL!. Well good. You are forgiven. But, don’t let it happen again… since it is the prior reason I came came back!
Another reason is to read good stuff like this:
Mark West: [quote]“We can increase the retail options in town without destroying the core, but not with a downtown or nothing approach.
If it is true, as Beth A. claims, that “We’re having a hard enough time to fill the spaces that go vacant downtown…” then perhaps the property owners need to lower their rents, improve their buildings, or redevelop their sites. Lower rents, or better buildings will result in full occupancy. That is how the market works.
Artificially blocking retail development elsewhere in town is how we ended up with our current deficiency in shopping options in town, and the resulting sales tax leakage to the surrounding communities. We cannot afford to continue this approach.”[/quote]
Of course Mark is completely right here.
Rich Rifkin, “hydrocele”? Ouch!
I am glad you are on the mend.
You’ve [i]never met Beth?[/i] She was on the board of DDBA, and has been a downtown business owner for years. I’ve met her. She’s perfectly nice. She just happened, along with Chuck Roe, to be quoted in the Enterprise voicing skepticism about the Second Street Crossing changes proposed by the developer.
[i]Don, I have yet to hear someone opposing a TJ Maxx opening in Davis.
[/i]Once again, true to form, you’ve distorted my comments.
[i]“This is kind of the thing that has really messed up some downtowns, a lot of downtowns across the country. It’s not the big box, it’s the little guys all around the big box that are the problem,” Roe said.
The DDBA eventually decided to form a committee to discuss in further detail the possibility of approving the amendments to the site design.[/i]
So my question to you, as co-president of the DDBA, was how long you thought that committee process might take, especially in view of the urgency with which you have promoted economic development on this blog over the last months.
It isn’t “railing” — it is a question. More generally: will the DDBA be an impediment to the diversification of retail in Davis and the development of the additional parcels near Target?
Now you know who that other guy is!
I am giving up on him.
Turns out it is not as satisfying blogging under a pseudonym after using a real name.
Jesus, Don, you really don’t give up with your railing crusade. I give up, you’ve pinned me down, you have me “on the spot”. The truth of the matter is…there’s no committee. Therefore, I don’t know how long that non-existent “committee process might take.” I also don’t know how long it might take for Martians to form a committee to report on the proposed zoning amendement. And I sure as shit have no idea what the reporter is talking about, nor do I know what Beth, who I’ve never met, is going to say next.
-Michael Bisch
It really is a strange state of affairs when the moderator is engaging in personal attacks. We’ll see whether he censors my next post.
-Michael Bisch
“At least that is what Bisch told me, that his hatred of Sue was personal.” -Rich Rifkin
Rich, this is a flat out lie. I challenge you to post the private email exchange between you and I and we’ll let the Vanguardians determine whether I was commenting on Sue’s behavior as a public official in public meetings or whether I was saying I had a personal hatred of Sue.
-Michael Bisch
Enterprise: “The DDBA eventually decided to form a committee…”
Michael Bisch: “…there’s no committee.”
Reporter contact info: tsakash@davisenterprise.net
You might want to straighten this out.
Beth is at B&L Bike Shop, 610 3rd St.
DDBA offices are at 826 2nd St.
No personal attacks involved in my posts, Michael. I asked you a question in your role as co-president of the DDBA.
Actually, I’m not going to wait for Rifkin to post the email. Here it is:
From: Michael Bisch
Subject: Your Enterprise colume
To: “Rich Rifkin”
Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012, 9:56 PM
Hi Rich,
I have obligated myself to not engage in negative campaigning in this council election, which is why I’m commenting privately instead of on the Enterprise or Vanguard websites. I am astounded by your comments stating that there is nothing wrong with Sure Greenwald’s demeanor in her official capacity as a city council member. I can guarantee you that her demeanor in my interactions with her on city 2x2s is entirely inappropriate and beyond the pale. Why do you think no DDBA/Council 2×2 has taken place since June of last year? Do you think it was because DDBA participants found Swanson’s demeanor offensive? No, it is because of Greenwald’s outrageous antics. I meet with city, county, university, and business officials on a daily basis. I have never met anyone that comes close to displaying the offensive behavior of Sue Greenwald in a meeting. Eye rolling, lecturing, citing unnamed sources to bolster her position, walking out of the room, demonizing those she disagrees with, constructing strawmen and then demolishing them, personally insulting meeting participants, walking in late and then monopolizing the meeting time until the meeting is adjourned. It’s totally insane. She interrupted Chuck Roe to argue with him during his 3 minutes of public comment as he was addressing the retail/parking project. If ever there was a gentleman, it’s Chuck Roe. She argued with the SACOG reps at length from the dais when they gave their presentation last December. You speak of her as if this behavior is commonplace and acceptable. And you stand by your comments. What gives?
I get that you share certain positions with her. But her behavior is beyond the pale. You cannot possibly condone it.
Regards,
Michael Bisch
And I responded, Don. I have no need to contact the reporter. I know what I say, and what I don’t say. I know what committees we have, and which we don’t have. I’m not responsible for what Tom reports, what Beth says, or your goofy posts.
-Michael Bisch
DT businessman,
As a sidenote on your e-mail above: Perhaps to most voters in Davis, Sues behavior as a councilwoman is not nearly as important as the results she achieved and the damage she helped to forestall. From other posts in the past in the Vanguard, it does seem that many people were frustrated with Sue’s style; often to the point of fuming rage. As a voter, I’m afraid to say that this bemused me (its always funnier when it happens to someone else), but didn’t matter that much, as she got good results for Davis.
The tricky thing about you posting comments such as above on this public website is that many voters are wary of the degree of business influence in politics; many citizens like me suspect that big business is too often able to steamroll to get their way with politicians at all levels of government (I personally don’t see this happening to a large degree in Davis, in the past or near future).
By the way, I have a lot of respect for small/local businessmen and their talent and hard work in getting a business going; especially when the Big Boys have a lot of unfair advantages. It is mainly the influence/control exerted by large corporations, particularly at the oligopoly scale, that I am opposed to. But I certainly also would not want to see our Davis council beholden to or sucking up to business interests (to establish oneself as a player to advance future political aspirations), but to keep to an even-handed course. This is one of the reasons that I’ve been a strong Greenwald supporter; I suspect by many other voters in Davis as well.
“Perhaps to most voters in Davis, Sues behavior as a councilwoman is not nearly as important as the results she achieved and the damage she helped to forestall.”
Perhaps to some, but definitely not to “most.” Otherwise, she would have been reelected.
It’s an interesting question JustSaying because if you look at the mailer ostensibly it was about her behavior, except that you know from the backers of the mailer – building trades unions, that actually it wasn’t about her behavior at all but rather it was about her position on the issue.
Looked into the issue of the HS Vice Principals…
It is kind of difficult to have a dialogue when the people arguing against this steadfastly refuse to do their own research – this is a point that Elaine ought to really take to heart especially as she deals with Mr. Harrington on the water issue.
In addition to student discipline which is a huge reason for the 2.5 positions, it was pointed out that there are over 70 teachers and 150 district employees that work on the HS campus that the VPs help supervise.
Moreover, in addition to the 1700 students there a number of split site students which means that the actual number of students on campus is closer to 2000.
The district has actually marked VP positions for cuts both on the HS site and at the JHS sites and the parents have wanted them in place. Some of the $500K DSF campaign is to restore VP positions elsewhere.
And finally, the district does not see these positions as low hanging fruit that they could cut, they have cut teaching and other positions before the VP positions.
Again it would be helpful if Elaine followed her own advise on the WAC and did her own research to see what these people do. However, it is clear that some of these positions would be wacked in the next round of cuts if the next parcel tax fails and the trigger cuts take effect.
jimt, I did not post the email to rehash the election. The election is over. The purpose of posting the email was to refute the false statement Rifkin made about me, not the first time he has made it by the way. To my recollection, I have never made a personal comment regarding Sue in public (although my memory is imperfect, so perhaps one slipped in there somewhere along the way). My comments have always been focused on her actions, votes, statements, demeanor as a public official. It is unclear why Rifkin persists in making these false statements and why he continues to criticize a number of my public statements and postings when there is so little difference between his positions and mine on these fiscal matters. There is virtually zero substance to his criticisms.
Rifkin goes into these bizarre forensic wordsmithing exercises where he tortures a sentence I have written to squeeze some meaning out of it, which simply isn’t there. Or criticize me for failing to comment on some issue, I’ll point to the quote where I did comment on the issue, and then he’ll shift his argument to state that I failed to provide enough “emphasis”. Really, “emphasis”? Do I really need to pay more attention to my use of exclamation marks? It’s all rather amusing.
-Michael Bisch
[quote]“It’s an interesting question JustSaying because if you look at the mailer ostensibly it was about her behavior, except that you know from the backers of the mailer – building trades unions, that actually it wasn’t about her behavior at all but rather it was about her position on the issue.”[/quote]jimt and I were talking about the question of how Davis voters might have viewed Sue’s behavior, not about any mailer. He was talking about her performance as a council member and how they weighed her pluses and minuses.
My minimal addition was to suggest a correction to his thought that “most voters” might have been evaluating her behavior as not nearly as important as her results. While lots of people expressed that opinion–or didn’t find any problem with her behavior in the first place–not enough voted for her to reelect her*.
The unions’ involved didn’t include many Davis voters. Many of us observed that their mailer, in fact, may have increased her vote total while decreasing Stephen’s.
——–
*Did all the votes ever get counted? It seemed as though a lot of them still were piled up when the “winners” were announced.
“jimt and I were talking about the question of how Davis voters might have viewed Sue’s behavior, not about any mailer.”
I’m aware of that. My point was to use the mailer as a reference to get access to an analysis in the absence of survey data.
“Did all the votes ever get counted? It seemed as though a lot of them still were piled up when the “winners” were announced.”
They completed the counting the week after the election.
[quote]“It is kind of difficult to have a dialogue when the people arguing against this steadfastly refuse to do their own research – this is a point that Elaine ought to really take to heart especially as she deals with Mr. Harrington on the water issue….Again it would be helpful if Elaine followed her own advise on the WAC and did her own research to see what these people do.”[/quote]David, this past couple weeks, you’ve been getting pretty close reacting to Elaine’s comments only with personal attacks on her rather than dealing with her comments and opinions.
You must know that people offer their opinions when they feel they have enough experience or research to opine. (The only [i]Vanguard[/i] contributor who consistently researches, even over-researchs, a topic is Rich.) Just because they disagree with you doesn’t mean they “steadfastly refuse” to do their research. Sometimes, you’ll get disagreement even if folks have considered everything you know and more.
It’s getting a little personal around here. And, then, there’s Don….
[quote]“…people may have cited personality in cases where there was a philosophical difference. For instance, the chamber clearly disagreed with her on key issues. Would they have accepted her quirky personality had they agreed? Their support of Souza suggests yet.”[/quote]Good point, although “quirkiness” wasn’t really the issue. People seem to come up with lots of reasons once they’ve decided based on, perhaps, just a couple. Most politicians try to give no one [u]any[/u] reason to disagree with them. (And, are you saying that Souza was quirky?)
[quote]erm: “my high school contained 1800 students, and we had one Principal and one VP and we got along just fine…”
dmg: Your statement is completely lacking in foundation. We don’t know what it means to be just fine or whether it was just fine. We also don’t know to what extent changes in circumstances over the last forty five yrs render any comparison null and void. In other words even accepting your declaration as fact does not mean dhs would be “just fine” under a similar arrangement.[/quote]
[quote]mg: It is kind of difficult to have a dialogue when the people arguing against this steadfastly refuse to do their own research – this is a point that Elaine ought to really take to heart especially as she deals with Mr. Harrington on the water issue.
Looked into the issue of the HS Vice Principals…
It is kind of difficult to have a dialogue when the people arguing against this steadfastly refuse to do their own research – this is a point that Elaine ought to really take to heart especially as she deals with Mr. Harrington on the water issue.
In addition to student discipline which is a huge reason for the 2.5 positions, it was pointed out that there are over 70 teachers and 150 district employees that work on the HS campus that the VPs help supervise.
Moreover, in addition to the 1700 students there a number of split site students which means that the actual number of students on campus is closer to 2000.
The district has actually marked VP positions for cuts both on the HS site and at the JHS sites and the parents have wanted them in place. Some of the $500K DSF campaign is to restore VP positions elsewhere.
And finally, the district does not see these positions as low hanging fruit that they could cut, they have cut teaching and other positions before the VP positions.
Again it would be helpful if Elaine followed her own advise on the WAC and did her own research to see what these people do. However, it is clear that some of these positions would be wacked in the next round of cuts if the next parcel tax fails and the trigger cuts take effect.
[/quote]
You call taking the word of the school district “research”? It is clear that no one can have a rational discussion w you on the issue of our schools…
For others whose minds are not closed:
See [url]http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/publications/oduwaye/Role Conflict and Administrative….htm[/url]
[quote]Conclusion- and Recommendation
From the findings of this study, it was concluded that the Vice Principals of Kwara State secondary schools experience some role ambiguities and role underload which influence significantly their administrative effectiveness. As a result of this role underload, many Vice Principals are redundant[/quote]
“You call taking the word of the school district “research”?”
It’s more than you’ve done on the topic. What jobs do they perform? Who would do those jobs if their positions were eliminated. How essential are those jobs? These are basic questions. You can’t answer them. Yet you *know* these jobs are wasteful and unnecessary. At the same in your capacity as chair you have repeatedly admonished Mr. Harrington that he needs to watch the WAC in order to have a valid opinion and yet you refuse to take your own advice.
See also [url]http://www2.suncoastnews.com/news/pasco-news/2012/jun/22/1/pgnewso1-pasco-school-district-still-facing-defici-ar-418884/[/url]
[quote]Meanwhile, board members raised questions Tuesday about whether Pasco schools have too many administrators at both the district and school levels.
Assistant principals, especially at the high school level, were among the positions discussed.
“The perception in the community seems to be when we open new schools that we never reduce administrators at the schools that are losing (student) population,” board Chairwoman Joanne Hurley said.
Principals who attended the workshop said that wasn’t the case.
Land O’ Lakes High School Principal Ric Mellin said his school is often cited because it had five assistant principals, including an assistant principal for the International Baccalaureate program, before Sunlake High opened in 2007. Land O’ Lakes still had the same number of assistant principals after Sunlake opened.
That’s not the whole story, though, Mellin said. He said the school was allocated six or seven assistant principals before Sunlake opened, but the previous principal decided to forgo those positions and hire discipline assistants instead.[/quote]
[quote]erm: “So in other words delay the surface water project decision until after November, because it might endanger the passage of an additional parks parcel tax and a schools parcel tax…”
dmg: That would appear to be a fabrication on your part since I didn’t say that[/quote]
The implication seems to be there from your own words:
[quote]At some point the voters will say no. Now it turns out that few things that the city offer the taxpayers rank up there with schools, but parks are at least close.
The other problem that faces the city – and we do not yet know when but at some point the city is planning to ask the voters for a chunk of money for the surface water project. It may be in November, although I still think April is more likely, but that’s a chunk of money that will go into the voter’s willingness to fund an additional parks parcel tax…[/quote]
However, I noted today that you are now advocating putting the school tax on a a mail-in ballot in the Spring. What if the decision on the water project is put off until the Spring? What then?
[quote]M. Harrington: Giv ethe WAC time to work this through to a specific project, give the experts time to develop a fair rate structure, make sure you have a specific EIR for that project, put it all on the ballot, and see if the voters go for it.
The longer you put it off, the higher the chances of our local economy recovering, and the greater the likelihood that a new project might pass. [/quote]
If the local economy recovers, and the city has put off a conjunctive use project, the more costly it will be – increased construction costs and the costs of financing…
[quote]medwoman: We seem to have had quite different experiences. My high school, from which I graduated in 1970, had 2000 students, one principle, one vice principle and far too few counselors. mine met with me a sum total of once, told me I could be anything I wanted to be, and left it at that. No further help at all. I can guarantee you that I did not do ” just fine” coming out of high school and I suspect many others who did not have educated, well informed, proactive parents did not do well either.[/quote]
You’re a doctor aren’t you? Seems to me like you did just fine…
[quote]M. Harrington: I attended the WAC last night, and stayed for part of the consultant’s report on comparing projects. Their assumptions as to water usage were completely bogus: way, way, way too high, and not helpful. Someone on the WAC should provide the detail, but their water consumption numbers, and therefore the demand, and therefore the size of the project, and therefore the expense, was completely laughable. Go ahead, put THAT one on the ballot![/quote]
Since you were there that night, you should know the discussion about demand needs will occur at the WAC’s next meeting. Please stop misleading the public…
[quote]M. Harrington: The Natural Resources Commission should weigh in on the environmental impacts of sucking up all of that river water. [/quote]
Since you were at the WAC meeting that night, you also know full well the NRC is working with the WAC and gives us regular updates as to its water conservation recommendations that will go before the City Council.
With all the tree trimming angst I have not heard much of anything about the CM’s budget (we really can’t call it a CC budget) dipping into the hallowed 15&#xre;serves. I am not opposed to this necessarily but think we need to recognize it so that next year we remember and hopefully be able to rep,enish and not ‘double dip’. Comments?
[quote]“You call taking the word of the school district “research”?”
I got facts from the district about numbers, how many they supervise, and the roles they perform. It’s more than you’ve done on the topic. Who else would I find out these basic facts other than from the agency who employs the VPs and creates the job descriptions? Are you suggesting that those facts are in error?
I asked you a week ago some basic questions and you could answer none of them.
What jobs do they perform? Who would do those jobs if their positions were eliminated. How essential are those jobs? These are basic questions. You can’t answer them. Yet you *know* these jobs are wasteful and unnecessary. At the same in your capacity as chair you have repeatedly admonished Mr. Harrington that he needs to watch the WAC in order to have a valid opinion and yet you refuse to take your own advice.[/quote]
I find it amusing that you would accept at face value whatever “facts” the school district staff gives you, yet label the WAC “suckers” for taking the word of city staff as to what the “facts” are. Seems to me the Vanguard is applying an unfair double standard…
“However, I noted today that you are now advocating putting the school tax on a a mail-in ballot in the Spring. What if the decision on the water project is put off until the Spring? What then?”
I’m not advocating anything, I’m laying out possibilities.
“You’re a doctor aren’t you? Seems to me like you did just fine…”
That’s like saying my wife did just fine looking at her now and missing the struggles in between.
“
I find it amusing that you would accept at face value whatever “facts” the school district staff gives you, yet label the WAC “suckers” for taking the word of city staff as to what the “facts” are. Seems to me the Vanguard is applying an unfair double standard…”
That is an interesting dodge since all you have done is post a few articles that you google and have not answered any of my questions I have presented.
The facts I presented are easily verifiable: number of students, number of faculty, number of staff, split site students, parcel tax money, previous proposed cuts, DSF trying to restore VP positions previously and in the present. Which of these facts are in question from your perspective? Which of these are even remotely implausible?
[quote]That is an interesting dodge since all you have done is post a few articles that you google and have not answered any of my questions I have presented. [/quote]
Interesting that you dodge the articles in evidence I googled… LOL 😉
[quote]The facts I presented are easily verifiable: number of students, number of faculty, number of staff, split site students, parcel tax money, previous proposed cuts, DSF trying to restore VP positions previously and in the present. Which of these facts are in question from your perspective? Which of these are even remotely implausible?[/quote]
None of your “facts” necessarily justifies 3 VPs at a high school… I would offer that the money could be better spent hiring more special ed teachers, no? I am entitled to that opinion, no? Certainly my research shows there are differing opinions on how many VPs a high school “needs”, no?
“None of your “facts” necessarily justifies 3 VPs at a high school…”
That’s correct but you took the approach of questioning the facts rather than my opinion based on those facts. Your response was: “I find it amusing that you would accept at face value whatever “facts” the school district staff gives you.”
“I would offer that the money could be better spent hiring more special ed teachers, no? I am entitled to that opinion, no? Certainly my research shows there are differing opinions on how many VPs a high school “needs”, no? “
Perhaps, but you are offering abstracts. The key questions are what jobs do those 2.5 VPs perform? You have no answer for that. Whether those are necessary functions and if they are who else can perform those jobs? You can’t answer those either right now.
Until you have answers to those questions, you can offer an opinion, but it is not going to be based on the realities on the ground of the district.
ERM
[quote]You’re a doctor aren’t you? Seems to me like you did just fine…[/quote]
Except that the lack of counseling about how apply to appropriate schools, how to plan a career, how to design an academic program all cost me at least 3.5 years some spent at the community college level when I clearly had the talent and academic background to be more assertive with my career plans earlier. Did I eventually get to a good place for me?
Absolutely, but I did it in spite of the lack of high school support rather than because of it.
This is quite the opposite of the experience my son had at DaVinci where, whether you call them teachers, or whether you call them administrators, there were people who had the time and energy to devote to the individual
students and to make sure that each kid was aware of and maximizing his or her own potential and possibilities.
They were helping design programs not only for the “golden boys and girls” but also for those who were needing more assistance to find their way. Can a school with only the golden children get by with one VP for several thousand ? Doubtless, but this does not reflect the real need.
ERM: [i]Spot on! And on another point, my high school contained 1800 students, and we had one Principal and one VP and we got along just fine…[/i]
This is a really surprising comment from you, given how much resentment you have expressed about your son’s experience with bullying in the Davis schools.
But tell more about your high school. Did students not have to deal with bullying? Did no one have to deal with taunts about being gay? Were there no sexist comments that students had to deal with? Was your school welcoming and accessible to everyone? No matter their income or home situation? No drugs to worry about?
I, too, went to a high school of about 1800 students in the late ’70s/early 80’s, one principal and one VP, and frankly I thought discipline enforcement sucked. I suppose I could present a narrative that I turned out okay, so one principal and one VP in high school should have been enough, but I think I was lucky. I know of other classmates who had a really rough time of it. One committed suicide. If you were a boy who had to deal with bullying, you were better off to figure out how haul off a beat up the aggressor yourself, if you could. I know a lot of men talk of such boyhood events with fondness like it was some kind of wonderful ritual of manhood, but that view of life is all nostalgia through rose-colored glasses. Like saying the the 1950’s were a period of idyllic prosperity and unity in this country, which is possibly true if you were white, male, middle/upper class, heterosexual, Christian, not physically disabled or dealing with mental illness, and no background of communist affiliation in your family.
In 2007 the Public Policy Institute of California released “Fiscal Realities: Budget Tradeoffs in California Government ([url]http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_107TGR.pdf[/url]).” Table 4.7 shows average staffing levels for school administrators per 1000 students for California, the U.S., and other major states. California ranks below the U.S. average and the other states in administrative staffing for schools. If you were to take DJUSD and scale it to the California average in the report (using 8000 students as a conservative round number), then DJUSD should have 88 administrators. DJUSD has less than the California average for administrative staffing.
If the schools should angle to pass a new tax, I don’t see why the city shouldn’t as well. As you said, the schools are just a few years ahead of the city. Things are going to get any better.
As far as the exchange between Michale Bisch and Don Shor, the question Don Shor posits seems to be legitimate, especially to someone who is the Co-President of the DDBA.
I would think it would behoove the co-president to take positive steps to correct the perception that they have a committee looking into the matter (apparently they don’t?). In addition, it seems that research should be made by you on a matter where the DDBA is mentioned directly by one of its members (who the co-president has never met?).
Perhaps less time on the Vanguard and more time meeting your members?
[quote]But tell more about your high school. Did students not have to deal with bullying? Did no one have to deal with taunts about being gay? Were there no sexist comments that students had to deal with? Was your school welcoming and accessible to everyone? No matter their income or home situation? No drugs to worry about? [/quote]
I would say my high school was not perfect with one VP, but frankly it was considerably better run that DHS is now with three VPs.
[quote]Until you have answers to those questions, you can offer an opinion, but it is not going to be based on the realities on the ground of the district.[/quote]
“realities on the ground of the district”? Whose “realities”? Secondly, I put three kids through DHS – how many children have you put through DHS? I have also been a teacher and had to work with administrators. How much personal experience do you have w DHS? Have you ever been a teacher in the public schools?
“would say my high school was not perfect with one VP, but frankly it was considerably better run that DHS is now [b]with three VPs[/b].”
First of all, you keep repeating the same misleading information. There are not three VPs, there are 2.5.
Second, you say it was better run but you really did not address his/ her point.
Third, “”realities on the ground of the district”? Whose “realities”?”
You’re being obtuse here. The point is that you have not connected the lack of need to specifics in this district.
Fourth, “I put three kids through DHS – how many children have you put through DHS? “
How long ago? And wasn’t one of your chief complaints bullying? Has the issue of bullying increased or decreased since your kids were in at DHS? BTW, how many VPs did they have then?
ERM: [i]I would say my high school was not perfect with one VP, but frankly it was considerably better run that DHS is now with three VPs.[/i]
You aren’t in a very good position to judge firsthand how DHS is run from a parent’s perspective, since your last child graduated ~10+ years ago.
It’s hard for me to believe that in this awful economy, there is advocacy for having 3 VPs at a high school of 1500 students. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this point…
To go a step further, I think there are extremely differing views on what is “needed”…
Elaine:
Again, not 3 VPs. Moreover, you still have not attempted to find out what they do, what their work load is, what work is essential, and who would replace their workload. I simply do not understand how you can make ANY assessment until you address those points. I agree, that we may ultimately disagree as to what is needed, but we are at a long way from the point where we can agree to disagree here.
ERM: [i]It’s hard for me to believe that in this awful economy, there is advocacy for having 3 VPs at a high school of 1500 students.[/i]
Because it’s viewed as a safety issue, perhaps akin to having enough police on the street. If you’re a parent who has concerns about safety in such a way, then you might advocate for it. If you don’t think it matters or don’t care, then you might want it cut.
If budget cuts get even worse, I suspect that DHS would probably give up on the 50% VP position, but try to keep the JH VP’s. That’s just what I infer from the school board conversation.