As you’ve probably read in the title of this post by now, this meeting will also be the last that I’ll be liveblogging, as I will be out of town on subsequent dates this year–and next year I will be at Haverford College, just outside of Philadelphia, so the commute would be rather prohibitive!  I’m glad that I’ve been able to serve in this capacity for so long, though also, of  course, excited to move on to different things (i.e., college).  We don’t currently have a replacement blogger lined up, but I would encourage all of you to continue following school board meetings, which are broadcast on Channel 17, and also at www.djusd.tv.  Thank you for reading!

7:30– Board President Susan Lovenburg says a few very kind words about my service at Davis Voice and selects me to lead the Pledge of Allegiance, though I opt out of rambling on about what a great experience it’s been for fear of incurring the irritation of the dozens of people in the room who are already rather impatient to get to public comment.  Said people–mostly teachers, demonstrating against layoffs and increased class sizes–fill the room and are standing around the perimeter, and many have turned their backs to the Board in protest.  A teacher sitting next to me tells me that many are angry because the Board moved the currently ongoing budget presentation, the first item on the discussion calendar, to before public comment, forcing them to sit through the likely long presentation before speaking to the Board.  Lovenburg mentioned something at the beginning of the meeting about the agenda that may have explained the Board’s position on this issue but unfortunately I didn’t catch it.

The presentation is essentially a primer on the District’s fiscal situation; the PowerPoint can be accessed here.  The atmosphere grows increasingly tense as several Board members ask the standing Board members to sit or to move to the back of the room so that audience members who wish to sit and watch the presentation may do so.  Protesters complain that they are not blocking anyone’s view, but Board members repeat their requests; finally, one audience member chimes in with an, “I would like to see it,” and some sit or move, though those not directly in front of her do not and an awkward stalemate ensues.  The Board seemingly decides to ignore the situation and proceeds with the presentation.

7:45– Two slides on the presentation sum up the District’s major financial roadblocks.  The loss of funding from parcel taxes instituted by Measures Q and W ($6.5 million/year) was resolved by the passage of Measure C, which effectively renewed them.  However, that still left a $3.5 million operating deficit, which is the reason for the layoffs being protested right now, among other budget cuts.  If Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed tax measure on the November ballot does not pass, then DJUSD will have to face down a further $3.5 million cut; and, in the near future, Measure A (an “emergency” parcel tax with a term of only two years) will expire, leaving the District with an additional loss of $3.2 million/year if no renewal measure is passed.

In response to a question from Trustee Sheila Allen, the presenter says that none of the District’s $11 million ending cash balance/rainy day fund can be used to pay employees, because it is essential for the District to maintain a large cash reserve to qualify for loans–otherwise, lenders may not trust that the loans will be repaid.  Furthermore, as a result of deferred payments from the state (essentially IOUs, as Allen points out), much of that reserve is not actually spendable because it is being withheld by the state government.

Many teachers in the audience are murmuring impatiently, seemingly resentful of being made to sit through a presentation on matters they believe the Board is already cognizant of “like we’re not aware there’s a problem,” as a teacher sitting nearby says to another audience member.

8:15- The Board meeting is interrupted by sudden loud clapping coming from Davis Teachers’ Association representative Gail Mitchell; many of her colleagues join her.  After the clapping quiets down, Board members express shock, but Mitchell interrupts with demands that public comment begin immediately.  The Board announces that public comment will occur after the presentation and that they are going to take a five minute break, and that they will adjourn if similar disruptions occur again.

Mitchell leaves the room, but returns during the recess to say that because the public comment was not moved to before the meeting, the Board members “are obviously not interested in what you have to say,” and leaves again with a, “We voted them in, we can vote them out!”  Many of the audience members–perhaps half–depart to hold a mini-rally outside, chanting, “shame” at the Board. President Lovenburg calls the meeting to order at the end of the recess, saying that anyone who disrupts the meeting will be asked to leave and restating that the meeting will be adjourned if disruptions prevent the continuation of the presentation.

In part fueling the anger is what the teachers perceive as the Board’s disrespectful attitude towards them, especially concerning how the presentation was moved to before public comment at the last minute.  However, certain statements by members of the Board provoke the audience members’ ire as well, including a comment by Allen that “we hope your students would not teach you with this level of disrespect”–the implication that teachers are like children waiting to be taught was not well-received–and a general perception by some members of the audience that members of the Board are doing their best to stifle teacher comments, both in this meeting and previous ones.

Trustee  Tim Taylor addresses these issues by saying that he had favored moving the presentation to before public comment because the pre-discussion calendar public comment is intended for matters not on the agenda, so he assumed that teachers commenting on layoffs would speak after this agenda item anyway.  He also notes that Board members have participated in many PTA and similar meetings on these issues, which are intended to be the main venue for comment from teachers.  Trustee Gina Daleiden says that the intent of the presentation was not to be repetitive or excessively pedantic, but to try to get some answers to questions audience members might have out there before public comment so as to be more efficient and helpful.

A big factor in the protests that I have omitted until now is the requested 5.5% pay cut from non-laid off teachers, after years of cuts and lack of cost-of-living increases which have left many teachers barely able to get by.

Public comment begins, with about 15 lined up to speak.

8:45- One teacher speaks articulately about why she felt offended by having to listen to the presentation, saying,  “The reason I stood up wasn’t because I didn’t want to hear this information… it was because I’d heard it before.”  She then went on to call for more of a community conversation, not at school board meetings, but at more open events where an actual dialogue can take place.

Another teacher speaks of the hardships the proposed pay cut would pose to her and other teachers, saying that she has a son who has to attend his UC for a 5th year because he was not able to get all his required classes (due to, of course, state budget cuts), and that many of her colleagues already shop at thrift stores, drive old cars, no longer buy meat; in her words, “We’re already at the bottom.”

Other teachers speak, many quite emotionally, about the impossibility of coping with further pay cuts, the drastic negative effects increasing class size would have on learning, and the need for greater transparency in Board decisions, especially those of financial consequence.

To finish up, one teacher advocates for the removal of special programs such as Montessori and GATE if they disadvantage the education of students at neighborhood schools, while a parent speaks about the need to avoid divisive actions such as those of the teachers who turned their backs before veering off into what struck me as itself a divisive statement that she doesn’t feel the Davis Teachers’ Association is productively participating in talks about budget cuts.

9:00- Various questions taken during public comment are answered by members of the DJUSD Cabinet.  Board members comment to conclude the item.  Trustee Richard Harris agrees that more community involvement and further conversations with teachers do need to take place, while Allen says that while “we like to think of ourselves as a bubble here in Davis, we’re not; I don’t know if anyone’s noticed, but there’s a worldwide economic downturn taking place,” before adding that she herself was laid off from her job with the county as a result of budget cuts and currently holds three part-time jobs without any benefits–”not asking for anyone’s sympathy,” she clarifies.  Daleiden states that “there’s no argument about class size increases here–we don’t want to do it,” but it seems the funds to maintain current class sizes simply aren’t there.  Lovenburg says that the divisiveness in recent meetings is “devastating” for her, especially because “friends of public education need to be rallying together to say with one voice that there needs to be better funding for public education” at the state level, and that part of the solution lies in working together to pass the tax initiatives on the November ballot.

9:15- To address the accidental omission of two items from the agenda, the regular meeting is adjourned and a special meeting is convened (agenda here), consisting of a presentation from the DJUSD 9-12 robotics team about their participation in the World Championships in St. Louis, Missouri, and a presentation from the Davis Schools Foundation about their fall fundraising campaign.

9:45- After two representatives from the Davis robotics team (the Citrus Circuits, led by Da Vinci’s own Steve Harvey, my math teacher for the past two years) present very articulately about what exactly it is that they do (their presentation and an accompanying video can be accessed from the links here), Mr. Harvey speaks for a little bit, thanking the Board for hearing the presentation and UC Davis for assistance from associated students and faculty and also for the $5,000 donation they received last year from the Chancellor’s office.  Superintendent Winfred Roberson notes that the District would like to be more supportive of the robotics team, potentially by offering Mr. Harvey a stipend, as thus far he has been financially uncompensated for the hours and hours of work he’s dedicated to the team.  (During the 6-week build season, the team meets Wednesdays and Thursdays from 2:30 to 5 and Saturdays  from 9 am to 6 pm; they also meet, less frequently, throughout the rest of the year.)

Board members praise the quality of the presentation, with Lovenburg thanking them for “providing some welcome relief  in our Board meeting”; various parents and alumni of the robotics team praise the team and Mr. Harvey’s dedication to it.  (For my own part, there have been more than a few times where, upon arriving at school sometime in the evening for one event or another, I’ve been surprised to find the robotics team still on campus, not having gone home yet.)  Finally, after an exciting demonstration of the team’s robot launching basketballs, we move on to the Davis Schools Foundation’s fundraising presentation.

10:00- The presentation is essentially a brief update on the DSF’s plans to raise $450-500k to support Davis Schools; their priorities list at the moment is to fund instructional aides at elementary school sites, to restore some Vice Principal positions at junior highs, and to restore some secondary school counselors, though this is open to revision.  Harris says that his personal priority list would be to restore the VP positions, the counselor positions, and then the instructional aides, and makes a motion to that effect, but Allen, who is the Board’s liaison to the DSF, says that their intent was to spread the impact across all grades and that she thinks more conversation would be needed before formally establishing the Board’s priorities.  After much deliberation, the Board unanimously passes a motion thanking the DSF for their contributions and listing the Board’s priorities as Harris enumerated them.  The special meeting is then adjourned, and the regular meeting re-convened; up next is the Tandem Teaching Policy Revision, which appears to be fairly minor and not really of interest to the general public.

10:30- The policy revision itself does seem to be fairly minor, but there is some public comment about the situation of tandem teachers (teachers who teach part-time in cooperation with another teacher, for those not in the know) during budget cuts, in which some partnerships have only one teacher laid off.  It seems that if the laid-off partner was not rehired because of recovered funds, tandem teachers may have to choose between returning to full-time teaching or being paired with a different co-teacher.

The policy will come back at a later meeting for a second reading, after a few suggested changes are made.

10:45- After an extremely brief presentation about an administrative policy to be adopted, and a few announcements, the meeting concludes, so I suppose this is my last post on my last liveblog!  Thanks to all my readers, and to Kemble and Susan, who got me started here; and thanks also to all those who commented.  I’ve really enjoyed this experience, and learned a lot from it, so it’s an extra plus that other people can read what I wrote and (hopefully) learn something from it too!  (And, of course, apologies to anyone whose views I’ve misrepresented–given my exhaustion by the time 7 o’ clock Thursday rolls around, I’m sure there are many.)  Best of luck to everyone.

7:15- The school board trustees are just now entering the already-full room–no chairs are available and dozens of people are lining the walls.  (The bulk of the attendees seem to be here to protest the proposed teacher layoffs and related issues, such as elementary class size increases.)  Public comment should be extremely lengthy, and at this point I’d be incredibly surprised if a few items didn’t get bumped from the agenda, given the Board’s preference for finishing up by around 10:30 (a very admirable preference, in the views of both myself and everyone else who has to be here, I’ m sure).  Behind me, a few members of the audience exchange sarcastic remarks about the Board’s previous request for “silent clapping.”

8:00- Agenda approved, with a few amendments: the recognition of Jay Ziegler for contributions to the passage of various parcel tax initiatives supporting the District over the past years is moved up before the Consent Calendar, and Items D and E are bumped to the next meeting as per staff request.  After Ziegler’s recognition, and some oddly lengthy updates from Superintendent Winfred Roberson (don’t those usually come at the end of the meeting?), Gail Mitchell, Davis Teachers Association representative, delivers a short speech about the difficulties teachers in the district have faced in the past years, including a 15% pay cut; she mentions teachers she has talked to in the district who are on food stamps and state-subsidized health insurance plans.

President Susan Lovenburg addresses the crowd, thanking them for their civility, before delivering a rationale of sorts for the decisions the Board is likely to make at this meeting, saying that we must acknowledge that “the state of California does not adequately fund public education,” and that though we can try to remedy it as best we can in our own district, state funding inadequacies have reached the point where major cuts are inevitable.  She also says that the Board will be invoking its ability to limit public comment to half an hour, after a two-hour public comment session at the last meeting pushed several agenda items onto tonight’s agenda.  Public comment begins.

8:15- Many teachers, and a few parents, speak against the layoffs of teachers, with special ire reserved for the prospect of increasing elementary class size.  A few speakers mention the District’s rainy day fund, and Associate Superintendent Clark Bryant’s pattern of overestimating expenses and underestimating available funds, as reasons that the District does actually have funds to maintain elementary class sizes; my own 6th grade teacher asks that funds be frozen for new programs, staff conferences, technology acquisitions, and other less central expenses before elementary class sizes are increased.  Many others cite the Board’s request for a 5% pay cut from teachers, following years of pay cuts and no cost-of-living increases as their cost of living rises, as the reason that inspired them to come speak before the Board.

8:30- Public comment ends, and the room empties out by about half.  In response to a question from Trustee Gina Daleiden, Superintendent Roberson states that it would cost roughly two and a half million dollars to maintain elementary class sizes.  The presentation about Emerson begins; roughly a third of the remaining audience (which still fills the seats) appears to be here for this item.

8:45- Much of the presentation focuses on Emerson’s recent efforts to publicize its unique mission and programs to Davis parents and students, results of which include greater awareness of the school’s integrated GATE program and its ability to combine GATE and Spanish Immersion experiences for students wishing to participate in both.  The post-presentation discussion, meanwhile, focuses on the Emerson Peer Helping program’s efforts to combat bullying.  After it concludes, the presentation on Career & Technical Education begins.

9:00- The presenters, teachers who work in the District, praise the reintroduction of computer programming classes at Davis High School and the implementation of a new student-run cafe at Davis High as part of a food preparation class, while saying that CTE offerings remain thin at the high school level.  They also ask that supervision of CTE be assigned to an administrator on a permanent basis to avoid the negative impacts the program has suffered as a result of turnover in the District Cabinet.  A few of the school board trustees thank the teachers for their presentation, while apologetically adding that they’re skeptical they will be able to institute any significant course improvements because of budget cuts.

9:30- After a lengthy discussion on ways the Board could help CTE without major financial expenditures, the presentation wraps up; skipping over items D and E on the discussion calendar, we’ve now arrived at a presentation about low-enrolled courses at Davis High School.

9:45- The presentation outlines suggestions for course eliminations, including yearbook, debate, and other classes, and recommends alternating years for German 1 and Chinese 1 to preserve both programs’ existence while maximizing enrollment.

10:15- Members of the Board seem especially saddened with regard to the likely reduction in language offerings, with Lovenburg in particular saying that “it hurts” to have to reduce the frequency with which Chinese is offered.  Speakers address the issue of languages, with a few students from Davis High’s German program praising its quality, while simultaneously pushing back against implications that it is a less useful language to know than languages such as Chinese, given that Germany is the largest country in the Eurozone.  One student notes that alternating years in which introductory courses are offered would likely greatly decrease enrollment in the program as a whole–had German 1 not been offered her junior year, she says she wouldn’t have started it as a senior.

10:30- A cohort of Chinese language education supporters speaks, with German supporters thrown in here and there.  Unsurprisingly, no one seems to want to eliminate any language classes.

10:45- The Board reluctantly votes to adopt the recommendations 4-1, with Trustee Tim Taylor voting against for fear of making a hasty decision that puts one or more of the language programs “into a death spiral it can’t get out of.”  The room almost completely empties out, returning to its normal level of low attendance.

11:00-The Board unanimously and unhappily approves resolutions eliminating teaching and other positions for lack of work and/or funds; speeds through a bunch of other items; and concludes.

The next Board meeting’s time has yet to be determined, but will be on either May 16 or May 17 depending on which the greatest number of Board members can attend.

7:15- The meeting is off to a slightly delayed start.  Very unusually, the room is full, with not a few people lining the walls.  I’m guessing a large number of teachers are here to speak about the proposed layoffs, though quite a few people  rise to speak about issues not on the agenda.  So far, the comments are highly critical of the Board’s funding of Superintendent Winfred Roberson’s Ph.D. as part of his contract, while teachers have to fund their own educations; many others castigate the Board for moving to increase class size despite the passage of Measure C, especially in light of its likely effects on both the achievement gap and achievement of students later on in their academic careers.  About 20 people stand in line at any one time, though more seem to be getting in the back of the line as those from the front of the line speak and sit down.

7:45- Many more teachers speak about the inequity in pinkslipping teachers at neighborhood schools but “skipping” specially certified teachers at so-called choice programs, which require students to opt in to attend.  One teacher notes that she has begun to hear  from parents that they don’t want their children to attend neighborhood schools exactly because of this–they don’t know who the teachers are going to be, unlike at the choice programs.  Also briefly mentioned is that socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority students tend to attend neighborhood schools, so cutting neighborhood schools first could further increase the achievement gap and put these students at an even greater disadvantage.

8:00- A few speakers from Emerson Junior High express their disappointment that more measures were not taken to insulate Emerson, and especially certain special programs at Emerson that usually have had relatively low enrollments, from the effects of increasing the size of Da Vinci Junior High, with which it shares a campus.  Barbara Archer, a co-chair of the Measure C Campaign Committee, speaks to those who have complained about increasing class size despite Measure C’s passage, saying that before she joined the committee, she was aware that “Measure C is not going to solve all our problems, that there was a structural deficit, that it would buy down class size but not keep it at the levels this year.”

Public comment concludes with a 5th grader from Willett Elementary relating how sad she was when she heard that her teacher was pinkslipped.  Staff comment from the Davis Teachers’ Association notes how big a difference adding just a few teaching positions can make in average class size.

8:30- The consent calendar is approved without amendment (usually this happens within the first 15 minutes of the meeting, for my non-regular readers).  This means that Patwin Elementary School has a new principal for next year in Nicole Smith, currently a teacher at Korematsu Elementary.  The Board then recognizes members of the Measure C Campaign Committee, but pulls the recognition of Jay Ziegler from the agenda (for another date, not because they changed their minds).  We’re now beginning the presentation about Montgomery Elementary.

9:00- The presentation about Montgomery is just wrapping up, after exploring various potential methods to improve student support and standardized test scores at Montgomery, such as stabilizing the staff, implementing a dual immersion program for Spanish speakers to complement their existing full immersion program, and promoting early childhood education.  Meanwhile, a lot of teachers are likely wishing that the layoff lists had been placed ahead of this item on the agenda.

10:00- Correction: the dual immersion model, which is only at the very early stages of investigation (the Board tonight is supposed to give the go-ahead to explore it as an option), would replace the Spanish immersion program.

After the presentation, about a third of the room rises for public comment, so perhaps this was actually the main draw rather than the layoffs?  Speakers, including parents and teachers at Montgomery, are thus far strongly in favor of “slowing down” to allow already-instituted changes to begin demonstrating long-term effects, rather than instituting dramatic new changes.  Others support the addition of a 4-6 Spanish Immersion strand to complete the current k-3 strand, though one speaker notes that having only one strand doesn’t really work because class sizes dwindle significantly over the years, given that students can leave the program but usually do not enter it late.

10:15- Speakers are growing increasingly critical of the dual immersion idea, with one lambasting the presentation as devoid of substance and asking who a dual immersion program might appeal to–those who would usually select it likely select Spanish immersion.  She, and other speakers, also protest that the presentation seemed to have little basis in any conversations with the Montgomery community, though some are more supportive of the non-dual immersion recommendations.  Still others say that dual immersion does little to address–and may exacerbate–the problems that Montgomery is facing, namely declining enrollment and a highly visible achievement gap caused by a very high concentration of English language learners and socioeconomically disadvantaged students relative to the rest of the district.

10:45- As public comment concludes, speakers echo themes from previous comments, with one noting that it seems to her that the problem being addressed at Montgomery is constantly being shifted so that it’s very difficult to work towards a solution.

The Board gets stuck on figuring out what motions are needed to resolve the presentation.

11:00- Trustee Tim Taylor responds to the more vociferous criticism from public comment, saying that the simple discussion of potential courses of action is not a condemnable act.  The Board gives directions that I did not type because I was waiting for a motion and then they decided they didn’t need a motion after all (maybe Susan can fill us in in the comments?)  And then I realize that I must’ve totally missed them removing a bunch of items from the agenda because we are done!  The second semester seniordom is starting to show in my blogging I guess.  (Allow me to flatter myself by using the word “starting.”)

Meeting adjourned!  Next meeting is in two weeks, at 7 pm on Thursday, May 3.

Also new: the agenda’s lack of Time Certain designations, which were brought up at the last meeting as being somewhat misleading in that they weren’t ever really at all accurate.  Will this hold, or will they be added back before tomorrow’s meeting?  I’ll continue to update my readers on this situation as if it was actually important.

7:30- The Board gets a late start, and makes a few changes to the agenda: Item d from the Discussion calendar (about secondary schedule master planning) was removed because staff determined no further advisement was needed from the Board, and then Items c, e, and f are going to be addressed first because they require a vote, and Gina Daleiden may not be able to stay the whole meeting because of back pain.  Superintendent Winfred Roberson announces that the grant from the Bechtel Foundation that I mentioned in my last post went through, meaning that DJUSD will be able to pursue the innovative k-12 STEM education plan outlined by presenters from UC Davis School of Education at that meeting.

The Board is now discussing the draft layoff list, with Daleiden expressing discomfort with the imbalance in layoffs between elementary school secretaries and secondary school secretaries, the latter being much more impacted by the current list.  However, the district officials presenting the list say that it was generally agreed that laying off elementary school secretaries was more of a safety risk, given that elementary school offices are more often used for health reasons and also have fewer staff members, increasing the risk that at any given moment no one would be present in the office to assist in an emergency.

8:00- Some testimonials to the essential jobs performed by elementary school secretaries.  The Board asks for more details about the money saved by the proposed layoffs, and moves on to subsequent items.  With no modifications, the posted contracts for Associate Superintendent Clark Bryant and Superintendent Winfred Roberson are approved.  The contracts maintain current salaries for both, with stipulations that any salary concessions negotiated with certificated employees will also be applied to their salaries.  (I believe this is necessary because members of the DJUSD cabinet are not represented by the same union as certificated employees.)

Oh, and Time Certain designations have indeed disappeared from the agenda!  Consider yourself updated.

8:45- The Board moves on to Item a, about Davis High School’s Academic Center, which offers free drop-in tutoring during and after school every day.  The presentation focuses on improvement in test scores among various groups (Latino, African-American, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and disabled students, as well as English language learners) throughout the years that the Academic Center has been in operation.  Lots of well-earned praise from the Board and audience members.  Board moves on to the Transitional Kindergarten update.

9:00- Bryant fills the Board in on upcoming TK information nights, preliminary enrollment (a little lower than expected), and similar items, while noting that the program’s implementation is dependent on the final state budget, which will become more clear in May.  After some announcements, the meeting concludes.  Next meeting is in two weeks, Thursday, April 19, at 7 pm.

Monday, April 2nd 

The Davis Bicycle Advisory Commission will be meeting Monday at 5:30 PM in the Community Chambers.

The Open Space and Habitat Commission will also be meeting in the Community Chambers, at 6:30 PM.

Wednesday, April 4th

The Business and Economic Development Commission will be meeting in the Community Chambers, at 7:00 PM on Wednesday.

Thursday, April 5th

The Davis Joint USD will be meeting on Thursday. Closed session begins at 5:30 PM and open session is at 7:00 PM in the Community Chambers.

The Safety and Parking Commission will be meeting at 5:00 PM in the Community Chambers.

A word of Warning: Tom Sakash’s article discusses a recent telephone scam sweeping Davis in which the caller poses as a representative of a nonprofit organization and requests the target’s PG&E information. Remember, never give out your credit card information unless you know the identity of the caller.

The City of Davis is currently preparing an environmental impact report for proposed development in the space formerly occupied by the Hunt-Wesson Cannery. Tom Sakash adds that there will be an open house meeting discussing the project on Tuesday, the 27th, at 6:00pm in the Veterans Memorial Center Game Room.

Monday, March 26th

Yolo LAFCO Will be meeting at 9:00 am in the Yolo County Board of Suprevisors Chambers in Woodland.

Tuesday, March 27th

The Yolo County Board of Supervisors will be meeting at 9:00 AM in the Yolo County Board Chambers in Woodland.

The aforementioned open discussion of the Cannery space development project will take place at 6:00 pm in the Veterans Memorial Center Game Room.

Wednesday, March 28th

The Planning Commission will be meeting at 7:00 pm in the Community Chambers.

The Finance and Budget Commission will be meeting at 7:00 pm in the City Council Conference Room. They will be reviewing the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy.

The Davis ChamberPAC has announced the first City Council Candidates Debate for the 2012 Election. It will be held this coming Thursday, March 29^th, 2012 from 6:30pm to 8:00pm in Community Chambers. The event is free and open to the public.

The Davis Chamber of Commerce is a membership organization whose mission is to promote, support, and advocate the general economic vitality of its membership and the quality of life for the community.

In 1997, the Chamber created a Political Action Committee to “support (or oppose) local, county or state ballot measures which impact the business environment in Davis.” Formed and operated under the guidelines of the California Secretary of State, the Davis Chamber PAC is financially separated from the membership organization. The sole funding source for the PAC is voluntary contributions by individual members of the Davis Chamber of Commerce. No funds from the operating budget of the Chamber are used to support PAC activities.

Over the years, the Chamber PAC has supported a variety of local measures including “Yes for Our Students” in 1999, 2004, 2007 and 2008; “Yes on City Parks” in 1998 and 2002; and “Yes on the Davis Library Branch” in 2007.

The Chamber PAC’s guidelines have been recently modified to allow for the possible support of local candidates for elected office.

Like communities across the globe dealing with the economic recession, our community has been through a very difficult period of adjustment in the past five years.  Our schools and city are confronted with significant structural budget deficits.  The Davis Joint Unified School District and City of Davis have cut a number of services affecting our quality of life with talk of more service cuts still to come.

Parcel tax measures and fee increases have been implemented with yet more proposals under consideration to fund remaining services.  Deferred maintenance on streets, water, and other vital infrastructure continue to accrue with no clear strategy to address these deficits threatening to further degrade our quality of life.  Yet many community opinion makers insist that we must maintain the status quo and abdicate our collective responsibility to effectively address these challenges to our quality of life.  The Chamber PAC believes that our community and elected officials must take a more proactive role in this time of uncertainty.

The Davis Chamber of Commerce does not relish engaging in local politics; it would much rather focus on policy, projects, and job creation to improve our quality of life.  However, it would be irresponsible not to act.  “Business as usual” is no longer a viable course of action.  It is imperative that the Davis community has political leadership capable of fostering a community that is not only socially and environmentally sustainable, but also economically sustainable.

Our community deserves elected officials and government staff who are willing and able to work constructively with community organizations and private industry to find solutions for today’s problems.

We intend on mobilizing our resources to encourage our community to support or oppose ballot measures and elect a city council that will focus on already identified community challenges, craft effective strategies to meet them, and execute those strategies in a timely fashion.

The Chamber PAC has been charged with:

1.      Crafting and executing electoral strategies that result in improvement of our members economic vitality and the quality of life for the entire community.

2.      Interviewing all council candidates in a debate conducive to properly assessing their grasp of economic matters and the critical role a robust local economy has in fostering a sustainable community.

3.      Considering recommendation and possible support of a council candidate or slate of candidates that support the mission of the Chamber.

4.      Raising funds to support PAC activities.

5.      Forming a broad-based, business community coalition to support these efforts.

These efforts are not intended to start and end with the June election.  Rather, these efforts shall be ongoing to ensure we do not lose sight of the critical importance a robust, local economy has in sustaining the well being of the community.

Chamber PAC’s City Council Candidate Debate

Thursday, March 29^th, 2012

6:30pm to 8:00pm

Community Chambers at City Hall

23 Russell Blvd

FREE and open to the public.

Cory Golden’s article “Blaming Occupy Protests, US Bank Shuts Campus Branch” discusses the recent closure of the U.S. Bank in UC Davis’s Memorial Union, as well as the coming legal bettle between U.S. Bank and the University. The emotions surrounding the bank’s closure range from joy to rage.

Occupy Davis has also made the news, this time for their protests against the industrial food-giant, Monsanto. Cory Golden discusses the closure of an overnight Occupy assembly in central park. Although, in this story, relations between the police and protestors seem cordial, many Occupy protesters left wondering why they were asked to leave, as they had been allowed to camp in central park during previous protests.

Monday, March 19th

The Historical Resources Management Commission is meeting on Monday at 7:00 pm in the Hattie Weber Museum.

The Social Services Commission will also be meeting on Monday. While they do not yet have an up-to-date agenda online, it appears that the meeting will be held at 7:00 pm in the Community Chambers.

Tuesday, March 20th

City Council will be meeting Tuesday in the Community Chambers.The meeting starts at 5:30 and opens for public comments at 6:40.

Thursday, March 22nd

The Human Relations Commission is meeting on Thursday at 6:30 in the Conference Room at 23 Russell Blvd. They will be discussing the nominees for the Huynh Awards (as discussed in a previous This Week in Your Government.)

The Yolo County Waste Advisory Commission will be meeting at 3:30 pm in the Integrated Waste Management Conference Room in Woodland.

7:30- The School Board gets a late start, each member (more or less) being accompanied by a high school student taking part in a program that allows them to shadow public officials for a day.  During public comment, a representative from the 25 Teachers’ Salaries campaign encourages the Board to look into how to lobby the state legislature to encourage the federal government to redirect money from defense to education, and a representative of the Davis Teachers’ Association asks the Board what the long-term plan for eliminating the deficit is, prompted by the recent distribution of layoff notices to close the structural deficit.  Also, slow internet today, so updates may lag.

8:00- Consent calendar and agenda are approved without modifications.  An update is presented about the upcoming installation of solar panel carports in the Davis High parking lot, the final phase of a tripartite project that earlier included similar installations at both Korematsu Elementary and Harper Junior High.  The Board briefly discusses how best to deal with maintenance of the Davis High parking lot, which is in poor shape and, having been patched many times, is probably in need of demolition and re-construction–but this would cost about $1 million, which is simply not affordable right now.

Much discussion about where to put trees.

8:30- Revised contract with SolarCity to install the solar panels is approved (despite reduced, though still significant, projected savings from the preliminary contract).  After some more updates about various environmental initiatives around the District, presenters from the UC Davis School of Education tell the Board about their plan, using funds from the Bechtel Foundation (pending a go-ahead from their board), to begin the development of an innovative K-12 STEM program based on cross-grade and cross-subject integration.  The program sounds really interesting, and is seen as having the potential to be a model for districts across the nation if it succeeds; you can read more about it in the full proposal.

9:30- Wow, has it been an hour since my last post? The Board is currently discussing the renovation of Davis High’s MPR, which is going to cost about $800,000.  The state, despite proposals submitted to the appropriate agencies, has not yet replied to requests for funds, putting the project in limbo.  As a result, the Board is discussing the possibility of simply demolishing the MPR–which, in addition to having various problems with its roof that resulted in a black mold problem that in turn resulted in its closure well over a year ago–if the state does not promptly respond, which would roughly halve the cost of the project.  This is, of course, pending input from the DHS community.

10:00- Next up is a budget update.  About to enter the 5th year of the budget crisis, the District is running out of options; despite the approval of Measure C, the District maintains a $3.5 million operating deficit, and Measure A–an “emergency” parcel tax approved last year–will expire at the end of next year, costing the District an additional $3.3 million per year.  If additional taxes on the state ballot in the November election do not pass, then further deep cuts will take place–$3.5 million in ADA (Average Daily Attendance, the state’s mechanism for distributing funds to schools) funds will be cut, and $2.5 million in payments the state has deferred (essentially, that the state was “supposed” to pay the District but could not) would continue to be deferred.  And on top of all that, the budget currently in place looks like it very well might have significantly overestimated revenues, meaning that the final budget may have to account for this with further cuts.

Note: an earlier reference to tax initiatives on “the June ballot” has been edited to reflect that these initiatives will actually appear on the November ballot.

10:30-After a presentation about cash flow and financing options concludes, and the Board finishes with announcements, the meeting wraps up.  (And Tim Taylor suggests that the time-certain designations on the agenda be made more realistic, because “we are way over,” by about an hour and a half–I’ve complained about these in so many posts that I stopped for fear of sounding repetitive, so this would be a welcome change.  For what it’s worth, Susan Lovenburg adds that she’s adopted the same strategy I have–”I never believe those.”)

The next meeting is three weeks from now, Thursday, April 5, at 7 pm.  Thanks for reading!

In his Davis Enterprise article, Tom Sakash discusses the upcoming 2012 City Council elections, in which five candidates (Brett Lee, Stephen Souza, Dan Wolk, Lucas Frerichs and Sue Sue Greenwald) will vie for three council seats. The article includes statements from all five of the candidates, check it out!

A second article by Sakash discusses UC Davis CalPRIG’s attempt to influence the Davis City Council into implementing a city-wide ban on plastic bags. Should we ban plastic bags in the city of Davis?

Monday, March 12th

The Finance and Budget Commission is meeting Monday at 7:00 pm in the CIty Council Conference room.

The Civic Arts Commission will be meeting in the Community Chambers at 7:15. They will be discussing the logistics of placing private art in public spaces.

Tuesday, March 13th

The Yolo County Board of Supervisors will be meeting at 9:00 am at the Board Chambers in Woodland.

Wednesday, March 14th

The City-UCD Student Liaison Commission will be meeting in the Community Chambers Conference Room at 4:30 pm. Discussions will touch upon ASUCD Student/Police relations.

Thursday, March 15th

The Tree Commission will be meeting in the Community Services Department at 5:30 pm.

The Davis Unified Joint School District meeting will be held on Thursday. Closed session begins at 5:30 pm and open session starts at 7:00 pm in the City Chambers.

The Recreation and Parks Commission will be meeting in the Senior Center Activity Room at 7:00 pm.