Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

Category: Trustworthiness

  • Dillan Horton notes Biased Endorsement Process from Davis Firefighters Local 3494

    (From press release) Throughout the campaign cycle, Dillan’s team arranged four meetings with the leadership of Davis Firefighters Local 3494. During these meetings, union leaders expressed their operations were in disarray as a result of the sudden departure of their longtime past president. Notably, there was neither a formal interview with union members nor a questionnaire for candidates, standard practice for union endorsements. If the candidates were properly interviewed and assessed, it would have revealed that Linda Deos, the endorsed candidate, has no substantial record of standing up for the right to organize, and has not presented serious plans for addressing the persistent labor rights issues that exist in Davis.

    When 3494’s new leadership called the campaign to communicate their endorsement decision, they shared that union leadership already promised it to Linda in a “backroom deal” months prior. This undermined the endorsement process, which should be based on thorough evaluation. This diversion sidelined Dillan, the candidate who’s worked in solidarity with unions his entire adult life, for a candidate who’s most extensive labor experience is working as an attorney for the state correctional officers union to represent prison guards accused of wrongdoing.

    As someone whose entire adult life has involved solidarity with organized labor, Dillan finds the sloppy & blatantly biased engagement in this council election troubling. It undermines the interests of 3494 members, and betrays the interests of the broader labor movement.

  • Vote to Heal a Divided Davis

    Preface to thinking about Measure Q Tax and council election

    2 map housing along freeway

    By Alan Hirsch   

    I write this having attended more City Council and Commission meetings than all current council members, and all but a few community members.

    For years now, I have seen city government fail to harness our community’s education and social capital wealth since the failure of the 2014 R&D Business Park initiative.  The community has not leveraged its charmed geography—a unique rural area highly accessible via I-80 & rail service between the Bay Area & State Capitol. And proximity to UC Davis, a major research university that brings billions in grant dollars to our community. We are ideally located to incubate a wealth of startups and attract businesses. This should be giving us a robust tax base and providing a rich offering of city services.

    Instead, we are failing. So, we now need to raise our sale taxes and we seem to have been forced to site new affordable housing next to the freeway, land that should have been used for new startups and businesses to build our city’s tax base.  I note council decided not to site housing on Russell at a redone Trader Joes Mall across from the University this year. And Community resistance to student housing on Russell Fields 6 year back, close to our downtown, forced students to live in dorms in West Village 1 mile from our downtown shopping area- where they don’t feed out sales tax base.

    It used to be noted at council meetings that Davis’s greatest asset is its involved and educated residents. No longer. Instead, city staff and council, though their actions, indicate they don’t believe this anymore. It used to be residents could express their insight and expertise by being involved in an independent city commission.  Full commissions used to bring up new ideas, and even vote to disagree with the council, even over ballot measures. No more.  People volunteering for commissions are told by staff that their role is to serve the current council’s policy, even though this contradicts the not-yet-updated official Commission Handbook that recalls the old way: “Commissions are independent.”

    (more…)

  • Follow the Money!

    Four Davis City Council Members Accepted Large Campaign Contributions from the Firefighters Union and its Members that Preceded Excessive Salary Increases

    By the No on Measure M Campaign Committee

    I. Large contributions were accepted by current Davis City Councilmembers’ campaign committees over 2 election cycles from firefighters and their union.

    All current Davis City Councilmembers, except Donna Neville, have accepted substantial bundled contributions from individual firefighters and Davis Firefighters Union Local 3494. Additionally, in Gloria Partida’s and Bapu Vaitla’s case, the firefighters’ union also printed and sent out a mailer for each of their campaigns, as well as door hangers. These door hangers were then distributed by firefighter volunteers on behalf of the campaigns in 2022.

    Following is a summary of the total contributions accepted by the 2020 campaigns of Will Arnold and Josh Chapman from the Davis Firefighters Union and their members, and by the 2022 campaigns of Gloria Partida and Bapu Vaitla. See Appendix A for a full detailed listing of the contributions as reported on the City of Davis’ and the California Secretary of State’s campaign finance  reporting portals.

    (more…)

  • Al’s Corner October – Vote NO on Measure Q – Or “Spend On!”

    OutputOpen to all topics of course, but this month we'll focus on cutting off the City Council's allowance money!

     

     

     

    To highlight this month's primary topic, here is my testimony sing-a-long from last night's City Council meeting (2 minutes):

    Here are the lyrics:

    Spend On (sung to the tune of "Dream On" by Aerosmith)

    Every time that I look at the budget
    All these lines on the books, they try to fudge it
    The money's gone
    It went by like a unwatered lawn
    Isn't that the way?
    The City always spends more than it can pay, yeah

    I know, nobody knows
    Where the money comes and where the money goes
    I know it's the City Council’s sin
    You've got overspend in order to win

    [ kazoo bridge ]

    Half the spending is on bottomless budget pages
    Ladder trucks, zip lines and climate changes
    You know it's true, oh . . .
    All this spending, come back to you

    Spend with me, Spend through the years
    Spend on the soccer field, and on housing crisis fears
    Spend with me, not just for today
    Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord will take the City Debt, away

    But until then . . .

    Vote No, Vote No, Vote No
    Vote No on Measure Q!

    Vote No, Vote No, or Spend On!  Spend On!
    Vote No!, Vote No!, Vote No! – Waaaaaaaaa-oooooooo!

    [ kazoo piano fade ]

  • Letter: Setting the record straight on the IHJD position on Measure Q

    Let's set the record straight regarding the position the No on Q speakers shared at the recent League of Women Voters Forum.

    No on Q stated that Interfaith Housing Justice Davis (IHJD) is urging residents to vote for Measure Q because the city is planning to direct more money to homelessness. They implied that the city has already committed to funding new programs addressing housing. While IHJD supports Measure Q, the city has not promised anything other than that housing is on the list of possible recipients of funding along with other legitimate city needs including replenishing the General Fund reserve, and infrastructure. The city has not promised to prioritize housing issues or indeed any particular recipient because Measure Q is a General fund tax and therefore by law, they can't.

    No on Q stated that a plan for the City to spend money on homelessness is in the staff report. A review of the 6/4/24 staff report clearly demonstrates a wish list of projects "including urban forestry, climate action, affordable housing and social services, and infrastructure ". No commitments were made (nor can they be made!!) about where funds may be used.

    Yes, IHJD supports Measure Q because we hope revenue will be generated sufficient to fund housing related issues. But we understand that passing Measure Q is only the first step. When the council begins the budgetary process after the election, IHJD will advocate for a commitment to address affordable housing and homelessness.

    Ellen Kolarik, co-chair IHJD

  • Fact Checking False Ballot Statement Claims by Yes on Measure Q

    by the No on Measure Q Campaign Committee

    This article factually analyzes and discusses patently false claims made by the Yes on Measure Q campaign in their ballot statements presented to voters.

    Introduction and Background

    This article is the 3rd in a series presented by the No on Measure Q campaign committee about the significant problems associated with the new tax measure. The first article (see here) provided three good reasons for citizens to vote No on Measure Q including a decided lack of transparency and disclosures by the City Council in bringing the measure to a vote. The 2nd article (see here) gives additional reasons to vote No on the tax measure, discussing the mismanagement of city finances by the current administration.

    About Measure Q

    If passed on the November ballot, Davis Measure Q would double the extra sales tax from 1% to 2% imposed by the City of Davis on all goods purchased or used within the City except for some food and medicines. Based on the expected $11 million per year generated by the new tax and a Davis population of about 66,000, this works out to be approximately $165/year tax for every man, woman, and child in Davis. And like the previous two ½ percentage point sales and use tax hikes, this tax is permanent.  It doesn’t matter if the City’s financial condition substantially changes for the better in the future, this tax never goes away!  

    No on Q Banner Artwork

    In the Past Decade, City of Davis Revenues and Expenses Soared Far in Excess of the Inflation Rate or Population Growth.

    (more…)

  • More Good Reasons to Vote NO on Davis Measure Q – Part 2

    Mismanagement of City Finances by the Davis City Council

    by the No on Measure Q Campaign Committee

    No on Q Banner Artwork

    Introduction and Background

    This article is the second in a series presented by the No on Measure Q campaign committee about the new tax measure. The first article (see here) provided three good reasons for citizens to vote No on Measure Q  including a decided lack of transparency and disclosures by the City Council in bringing the measure to a vote   This 2nd article discusses the mismanagement of city finances by the current administration, which is attempting to get their financial house in order by encouraging citizens to approve forking over millions of dollars annually rather than addressing the root causes of the city’s financial problems. The best way to describe this effort is that it is a “Bailout of financial and operational mismanagement!

    About Measure Q

    If passed on the November ballot, Davis Measure Q would double the extra sales tax from 1% to 2% imposed by the City of Davis on all goods purchased or used within the City except for some food and medicines. Based on the expected $11 million per year generated by the new tax and a Davis population of about 66,000, this works out to to be an approximately $165/year tax for every man, woman, and child in Davis. And like the previous two ½ percentage point sales and use tax hikes, this tax is permanent.  It doesn’t matter if the City’s financial condition substantially changes for the better in the future, this tax never goes away!   

    Reason 4 The City Council suspended paying down $42 million of unfunded employee benefits.

    (more…)

  • Sierra Club Yolano Group Opposes New Changes Proposed for our Revered Davis Citizen Advisory Commissions

    The changes will threaten Commission independence and stifle innovation

     By the Sierra Club Yolano Group Management Committee

    A recent op-ed by Dan Carson and Elaine Roberts Musser (see here)  alerted Davis residents to a concern with a new proposal before the Davis City Council that has the potential to substantially limit citizen input into environmental issues in the City of Davis. 

    According to the op-ed, Mayor Josh Chapman and Councilmember Bapu Vaitla recently began asking Davis City Commissioners for feedback on their proposal for “clarification of how items are placed on a commission meeting agenda.”

    Carson and Roberts Musser state:

    “…in a big change, proposals initiated by a commission would now be subject to review and veto — by either any relevant council subcommittee (two councilmembers) or that commission’s assigned Council liaison (typically one councilmember).The Chapman-Vaitla plan says these new rules would apply whenever the council wished to “undertake a particular task/project/discussion.” In other words, almost anything and everything a commission might ever want to do would be subject to veto by one councilmember. The Council and city staff would dictate what a commission can or cannot do, but the commission itself would have absolutely no control over its work.” (Bold emphasis added)

    If enacted, we find this proposal deeply concerning and undemocratic.  Historically, at least six of Davis’s volunteer citizen commissions regularly dealt with environmentally-related matters: Tree; Open Space and Habitat; Natural Resources; Bicycling, Transportation, and Street Safety; Utilities; and Recreation and Park Commission (for the latter, with topics such as the use of toxic pesticides and drought-tolerant plantings).

    (more…)

  • Good Reasons to Vote NO on Davis Measure Q – Part 1

    Lack of Transparency by the Davis City Council

    By the "No on Measure Q" Campaign

    About Measure Q

    If passed on the November ballot, Davis Measure Q would double the extra sales tax imposed by the City of Davis from 1% to 2% on all goods purchased or used within the City except for some food and medicines. Based on the expected $11 million per year generated by the new tax and a Davis population of about 66,000, this works out to to be an approximately $165/year tax for every man, woman, and child in Davis. And like the previous two ½ percentage point sales and use tax hikes, this tax is permanent.  It doesn’t matter if the City’s financial condition substantially changes for the better in the future, this tax never goes away!  

    Introduction and Background

    This article is the first in a series presented by the No on Measure Q campaign committee talking about various adverse impacts and lack of disclosures of the new tax measure. This article discusses the non-transparent and deceitful process by which Measure Q was brought to the public.  Many elements of Measure Q and the City’s finances have been shrouded in secrecy and not subject to public scrutiny and analysis by a citizen advisory commission.

    _____________________________

    Reason 1 The City Council prevented our watchdog Finance & Budget Commission from weighing in on the Tax Measure by unscrupulous means

    For decades, the citizens of Davis have relied on the citizen’s advisory Finance and Budget Commission to provide needed oversight of the City’s finances. But our City Council has been so contemptuous of this Commission that they quietly refused to appoint any new applicants to fill Commission vacancies for more than a year. As a result, they have not met since July, 2023. So this critical Commission never even got the chance to weigh in on the need for new  taxes or how the proceeds will be spent. What is the City Council trying to hide from us?

    (more…)

  • New Plan to Micromanage City Commissions Isn’t Good Government (Or Legal)

    Commission-Task-Memo-ATT-Flow-ChartBy Dan Carson and Elaine Roberts Musser

    Mayor Josh Chapman and Councilmember Bapu Vaitla recently began asking city commissioners for feedback on a proposal for “clarification of how items are placed on a commission meeting agenda.”  Chapman and Vaitla did not invite the public at large to weigh in on their proposal, but we feel compelled to do so in the public interest.

    To sum up, we recommend jettisoning this illegal and ill-conceived plan. It would empower even a single councilmember to micromanage and indefinitely block any commission-initiated proposal they didn’t like for any reason whatsoever. There are far better alternatives to promote teamwork and collaboration between the City Council and the city’s expert volunteer citizen commissioners.

    Current city policy allows commissions free reign to work on pretty much anything they want as long as it is consistent with the written charter established for them. Once a commission has explored a policy matter, the city’s Commission Handbook says it may submit items to the Council to be placed on the Council agenda for   its consideration.

    The Chapman-Vaitla plan, summarized in a flow chart [see graphic at the beginning of the article], overrides those policies. The Council and the city staff could continue to place items on commission agendas. Yet, in a big change, proposals initiated by a commission would now be subject to review and veto — by either any relevant council subcommittee (two councilmembers) or that commission’s assigned Council liaison (typically one councilmember).The Chapman-Vaitla plan says these new rules would apply whenever the council wished to “undertake a particular task/project/discussion.”  In other words, almost anything and everything a commission might ever want to do would be subject to veto by one councilmember. The Council and city staff would dictate what a commission can or cannot do, but the commission itself would have absolutely no control over its work. This is bizarre and extremely unwise.

    (more…)