Last week we reported that the WAC (Water Advisory Committee) by a 6-4 vote recommended a binding vote on water. However, this week’s staff recommendation by City Manager Steve Pinkerton seems to move away from that recommendation and back toward an advisory vote.
This week’s staff report notes, “At the June 12th City Council meeting, staff presented a request from the committee asking for an extension of their project recommendation date to August 21st and rate recommendation to September 18th. Council granted this extension, but also asked the committee to review the ballot language that needs to be finalized by July 10th, and return to Council with a recommendation on June 26th.”
“This is the ballot measure that the Council decided to add to the November election to allow the citizens to vote on surface water supply,” the staff report continues.
There are two votes that were taken on June 14.
First, as we reported, “Whatever language we recommend to Council, it should be a binding vote,” passed by a 6-4 motion.
Second, by a 9-0 motion with one abstention, “We’ll recommend that we have a November ballot, on a conjunctive use project, that will be described in a mailing, with specifics to the project, cost, and rates, similar to what will be mailed in the Prop 218 notice, to all voters. The fact that the project is a conjunctive use project will be described in the ballot language itself with the term conjunctive use clearly defined.”
So far all is good.
But in the recommendations we get something a little different: “Staff recommends developing ballot language for an ordinance, to be submitted to the voters, that would define a conjunctive use project to include the current alternatives under consideration, including the broad parameters of the project alternatives being considered and the range of costs and possible range of customer rates.”
However, the City Manager’s recommendation undermines the WAC vote of 6-4 by recommending, “The language would direct the city to move forward on a conjunctive use project but would provide that the final decision to move forward on a conjunctive use project rests with the Council.”
In other words, the city staff is recommending that the vote be advisory not binding.
The recommendation continues, “This language would be drafted and approved by the Council on July 17th, at which time the Council would call the election.”
As we will lay out later in the week, the timeline for getting a real vote on the actual project and current rates is tight – too tight to really realistically do it.
But now staff is rebuking the WAC by recommending an advisory vote, and that’s clearly the language in the recommendation. Any time you have the final decision resting with the council and not the voters, that is advisory not binding.
As we noted last week, the WAC did the right thing and sent the right message. By holding an advisory vote, the message would have been, while we value your input, we just don’t trust you to make the right decision.
Furthermore, this likely puts a competing citizen’s initiative back in play, assuming that council does not wisely follow the advice of the WAC.
As we noted last week, the reality is that, had the WAC decided to go with an advisory vote and been supported by the council, a citizens group would have risen up to put a competing and binding measure on the ballot anyway.
It is not that voters always make the right decision. But at some point you do your homework, you put out your best proposal, and hope that the voters can figure it out and do the right thing.
The city manager, instead of listening to the wise advice of the citizens that have volunteered to spend hours of their time working on this project, has given into the fears expressed by Stephen Souza, the outgoing member of the council.
“If a committee that is composed of dedicated people have spent twelve meetings, three to four hours, and they need more time to understand, how in the world do we think our community of citizens that have spent hardly any time are going to get and understand it well enough to vote on it intelligently?” he asked.
As we argued last week, not only does Mr. Souza’s contention rise to fear-mongering, but he misses the essential point on why we need subcommittees.
The WAC is spending all of this time going through the process so that the voters do not have to.
The voters do not have to start from scratch. What the voters do is read the report and recommendations from the WAC, and then they make up their own minds. They do not have to duplicate the work of the WAC any more than the council would. That is why we have the WAC in the first place.
For those of us who are more skeptical of the project, we have people like Bill Kopper and Michael Bartolic to look to in order to help guide us.
As we argued yesterday, the water measure needs to be done the right way, so that we can have a real vote in November that is binding and the voters can accept as legitimate.
Anything short of that will be met with suspicion. Game the process too much and you get a competing initiative and likely nothing is passed.
It’s a tricky process. There are no easy answers, but playing games will be a loser at the polls, you can bank on that.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
DG: “the water measure needs to be done the right way, so that we can have a real vote in November that is binding and the voters can accept as legitimate.”
Absolutely! I want to know what project and costs we are voting on, the details will say it all.
“As we argued yesterday, the water measure needs to be done the right way, so that we can have a real vote in November that is binding and the voters can accept as legitimate.” -David Greenwald
David, maybe it’s just me, but your reporting on this issue is becoming increasing confusing. Perhaps I’m missing the nuance, but if that’s the case, this is no time for nuance.
Your article yesterday seemed to be lending credence to Dunning’s contention that there is no way that a “real vote” can be held in November. It’s pretty clear that Bob is already working at undermining the legitimacy of the November vote. Today you state that the WAC has it right by outlining a path to a legitimate November vote. Which is it? If your article today represents your true position, you should have been taking it to Dunning yesterday.
-Michael Bisch
[quote]First as we reported, “Whatever language we recommend to Council, it should be a binding vote,” passed by a 6-4 motion.
Second, by a 9-0 motion with one abstention, “We’ll recommend that we have a November ballot, on a conjunctive use project, that will be described in a mailing, with specifics to the project, cost, and rates, similar to what will be mailed in the Prop 218 notice, to all voters. The fact that the project is a conjunctive use project will be described in the ballot language itself with the term conjunctive use clearly defined.”
So far all is good.
But in the recommendations we get something a little different, “staff recommends developing ballot language for an ordinance, to be submitted to the voters, that would define a conjunctive use project to include the current alternatives under consideration, including the broad parameters of the project alternatives being considered and the range of costs and possible range of customer rates.”
However, the City Manager’s recommendation undermines the WAC vote of 6-4 by recommending, “The language would direct the city to move forward on a conjunctive use project but would provide that the final decision to move forward on a conjunctive use project rests with the Council.”
In other words, the city staff is recommending that the vote be advisory not binding.[/quote]
I perfectly understand the Vanguard’s confusion here, but the Vanguard’s conclusion that city staff is recommending the vote be advisory not binding is incorrect. By August 21 the WAC is expected to come up with and forward to the City Council a decision on which surface water project it believes should be implemented. It is at that time that the City Council will either accept or reject the advice of the WAC and make its decision on which project is best for Davis citizens. At some point, it is the suggestion of the WAC that a mailer be sent out to voters with the specifics of the project, its costs and the rates that must be implemented to pay for the project. It is the opinion of the WAC that the voters should KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE VOTING ON, and that the vote will be BINDING on the City Council.
The problem comes in when trying to draft the ballot language. The ballot language must be finalized by mid-July I believe (it may be sometime slightly sooner), long before any specific project is selected. The decision on which specific project will not come until Aug 21. Thus it is necessary to refer to a conjunctive use project in the ballot in more general terms based on what is known at the time, to include the current alternatives under consideration, including the broad parameters of the project alternatives being considered and the range of costs and possible range of customer rates. The accompanying mailer will spell out all the specifics once they are known. The vote on the ballot language can be binding rather than advisory, if the City Council agrees with the WAC that it should be so.
So city staff’s recommendation does not undermine the WAC’s vote, but rather is complementary to it. The final decision to move forward on a specific conjunctive use project has always rested with the City Council, and will be decided Aug 21. And the specific conjunctive use project will be set forth in a mailer, that will lay out which project is under comtemplation, its costs, and the rate structure necessary to pay for it – prior to the vote.
Let me see …. the WAC was set up to provide voter input to the CC on water project issues, they ask for more time, the CC gives it to them, and then staff recommends that the CC ignore the WAC’s reasonable recommendations that the ballot vote, whenever it is, be binding on the project details and the rates?
Dear Members of the WAC: welcome to Twilight Zone, where we were back in August 2011. Everyone knew the rates were screwed up, unfair, and probably unconstitutional, yet 4 members of the Davis CC rushed to raise the rates because Woodland wanted them to.
Now, staff (after surveying each CC member during the 1 on 1 meetings between the City Manager and each CC member, once per week) are putting out the recommendation that the WAC be ignored. Why is that? Because Woodland is in a hurry …
Back to the Future we go.
If they do an advisory vote, the support we had for the water referendum will double.
Dear Members of the Davis Community: I hate to say it, but once again City staff are trying to strip you of your right to vote on a specific, well-defined water supply project with specific rates that are binding. We won’t know until tomorrow night’s CC meeting, but I am assuming that the City Manager has done his job and surveyed for at least 3 CC votes before he released the recommendation.
They are about to disenfranchise all of us on a project that will hugely increase our rates for a public project that exceeds $500,000,000 in project costs.
Ideally, we will have a substantive project debate between now and November, so that the voters will have a clear understanding of the pros and cons when they cast their votes. This will be a trememdously significant, far reaching community decision, one which needs to be undertaken with eyes wide open as to the consequences. I predict, however, that there will be a concerted effort, both intentionally and unintentionally, to undermine a substantive debate. Dunning’s column yesterday was merely the first salvo. It will be interesting to see whether the Vanguard becomes part of the undermining effort or part of an effort to shore up a substantive debate.
-Michael Bisch
DT: I think the article was very substantive. The project is technically not ready for Prime Time. Neither are the rates.
What’s the rush?
MH, I re-read Dunning’s column just now to ensure I hadn’t missed something when I read it yesterday. Dunning’s column was a lot of noise surrounding his sole substantive claim that the voters would be confused because the necessary info would be in 2 separate documents (sample ballot and Prop 218 notice). Do you agree with Dunning’s claim?
-Michael Bisch
[i]”Game the process too much and you get a competing initiative and likely nothing is passed.”
[/i]
Why don’t you ask the two people who are threatening a “competing initiative” what their intentions are?
“However, the City Manager’s recommendation undermines the WAC vote of 6-4 by recommending, “The language would direct the city to move forward on a conjunctive use project but would provide that the final decision to move forward on a conjunctive use project rests with the Council.”
Letting the Davis City Council have the final say on the Woodland-Davis Surface Water Project would essentially complete the “Christmas Coup*” I have described previously. Stop the Christmas Coup, Part Two!
__________
*The Davis City Council approved the Woodland-Davis Surface Water Project the week before Christmas 2010 when everyone was busy, unaware, or away! Those approving the Project did not provide any explanation why the critically needed Project water right offer was available from the developer ONLY in December of 2010. Finally, December 2010 was also the last month that Councilman Saylor (the third assured vote for the Project) was available to approve the Project.
Now we really do not know what the position of the city council will on:
a) When the issues, in whatever package that is concocted, will be put up for a vote, Nov. 2012 or April 2013. It was perfectly possible to foresee that this would be an issue a month before the council elections. Yet contrary to a direct suggestion I made to DG re this, he refused to ask this question of the candidates on the Vanguard.
b) I also suggested to DG that candidates be forced to take a position on whether they favored a binding or advisory vote. Many people, including critics of the water project, just assumed, for some odd reason, that the vote would be binding.
All of which is to say that because of lack of vigilance and the repeated failure of several organs to call for, or ask for, specifics, the three newly elected council members have a lot more wiggle room than they had a couple of months ago.
“Your article yesterday seemed to be lending credence to Dunning’s contention that there is no way that a “real vote” can be held in November. “
I don’t believe that there is no way a real vote can be held in November, but if you look at a realistic timeline, it seems to difficult and we must be prepared that it might not be possible.
“Today you state that the WAC has it right by outlining a path to a legitimate November vote. “
I’m not sure I said that either.
I have as yet have not laid out a position, I have only expressed concerns about the ability to make the current timeline work.
“I perfectly understand the Vanguard’s confusion here, but the Vanguard’s conclusion that city staff is recommending the vote be advisory not binding is incorrect.”
Okay, I’m confused, even several of your colleagues have told me privately that is exactly what the City Manager is attempting to do.
Here’s the language of the recommendation:
“The language would direct the city to move forward on a conjunctive use project but would provide that the final decision to move forward on a conjunctive use project rests with the Council.”
How is that not an advisory vote?
“I predict, however, that there will be a concerted effort, both intentionally and unintentionally, to undermine a substantive debate. Dunning’s column yesterday was merely the first salvo.”
Before you can have a substantive debate, there has to be substance. Right now we have no project and no rates and we might not have rates by the time this goes to the ballot and when this goes to the ballot, it might not be a binding vote.
Again, Matt and colleagues: what is the rush to a November ballot? I dont get it.
The concern is that if we push it past November, Woodland drops out and it adds to the cost. On the other hand, we may not be able to avoid that fate
[quote]“I perfectly understand the Vanguard’s confusion here, but the Vanguard’s conclusion that city staff is recommending the vote be advisory not binding is incorrect.”
Okay, I’m confused, even several of your colleagues have told me privately that is exactly what the City Manager is attempting to do.
Here’s the language of the recommendation:
“The language would direct the city to move forward on a conjunctive use project but would provide that the final decision to move forward on a conjunctive use project rests with the Council.”
How is that not an advisory vote?[/quote]
Reread my first response carefully…
1) David, the WAC chair has posted on the Vanguard that we will have project details and rates in time for the voters to make an informed decision in November. Why sound the alarm in June?
2)David, you will know tomorrow evening whether we have a binding vote in November. Why sound the alarm today?
3)”do I trust the WAC? No I don’t.” -David Greenwald, yesterday. Today you write:
“The WAC is spending all of this time going through the process so that the voters do not have to.
The voters do not have to start from scratch. What the voters do is read the report and recommendations from the WAC, and then they make up their own minds. They do not have to duplicate the work of the WAC any more than the council would. That is why we have the WAC in the first place.”
David, this is really confusing/conflicting stuff you are writing day-to-day. There must be some nuance that I’m missing. Are the other voters missing the nuance as well?
-Michael Bisch
DT: To answer point Number 1, see Point Number 2.
If you do not understand Point Number 2, I think you’re being a bit dense. The answer should be clear that the alarm is being raised to insure that those in charge put these issues into proper consideration.
As for three, it’s helpful if you do not read things in isolation from each other. In the first context, the admonition is against a group-think mentality. In the second, it is a purely informational endeavor. It’s a subtle but important distinction but can be summed up that I trust the information that the WAC uncovers but do not necessarily expect to agree with their recommendations.
Maybe I am dense. It wouldn’t be the first time. Help me out. What I’m reading from you now, 2 articles and a bunch of additional comments later, is that the critical issue for you is the Council needs to agree to a binding vote tomorrow evening? Other than that you’re good for the time being? Because that’s not at all the alarm that Dunning rung on Sunday, which you echoed.
-Michael Bisch
Semi “off-topic”… Why aren’t City Manager, Department Heads, and City Council compensation documents on the City webpage? Transparency?