Bad Press

One of the reasons I created this blog in the first place was so that interested people (including the media) could come here and find the salient points related to my lawsuit in one place, in a succinct, easy-to-read and comprehensible format. I guess I was a bit too late to prevent the most recent piece in the East Bay Express. http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/oakland_s_measure_y_is_a_bad_law/Content?oid=927502

Nevertheless, Mr. Gammon could have just picked up the phone and called me, or at least sent me an e-mail, before printing his piece, full of misinformation, which I will now take the time to correct here.

Me, a political gadfly? Hardly. I've only been to one City Council meeting in my life. I've had no involvement in Oakland politics, ever, with the exception of this lawsuit. If every concerned citizen who stands up for their rights, and the rights of their neighbors, is a "gadfly," then I guess that's me.

Gammon claims I am pushing for a "strict interpretation of Measure Y." No, I'm pushing for the City to follow the law, i.e. what the voters intended. The voters intended that we get 63 additional police officers, increase the size of the force, with the purpose of decreasing crime. That's not what we got. What we got was a slush fund that the City felt it could dip into for whatever it felt like, like paying for the academy training expenses of Deborah Edgerly's daughter, who flunked four times. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/02/BAG1GNTL8P1.DTL

In fact, it was the City that pressed for a hyper-technical, overly strict reading of Measure Y when it claimed the law didn't require it to actually employ 739 officers as a precondition to collecting the tax, and that all that was required was "appropriation" of funds to hire the officers.

Without any research whatsoever, Gammon arrogantly claims, "After all, Measure Y clearly allows the department to hire and train rookies for problem-solving positions." Gammon, however, is not a lawyer and is not trained in the rules of statutory construction. In addition, because Gammon didn't attend the court hearing, or read the initial pleadings that I filed, he was unaware of the argument that Measure Y was never intended to pay for recruiting and academy expenses of any police officers, Measure Y or otherwise. That's because the measure specifically provides for $500,000 annually for "equipment and training," but does not actually allocate any money for recruitment or academy expenses. In his statements in court, Judge Roesch appeared to agree with my interpretation of Measure Y on these issues, not the City's.

Measure Y was meant to fund police officer salaries and benefits. The general fund was supposed to pay for recruitment and academy training. While this fact may have meant that Measure Y was underfunded, or poorly drafted, that does not make the City's actions legal.

Next, Gammon goes on to explain why he thinks the City's decision to take the money from Measure Y, as opposed to the general fund, made sense: because the general fund had no money. I am tired of hearing this same old sorry excuse. The real reason the general fund has no money is because the City's priorities are all screwed up. Providing police services to the residents is one of the most, if not the most basic city service there is. How about cutting out the lunches at Bay Wolf (http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-07-10/article/30510?headline=Civil-Grand-Jury-Appalled-By-Oakland-s-Credit-Card-Policies)?
How about taking away Ron Dellums' private chauffeur (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=27338) and other bloated, unnecessary expenses? How about trying to prevent the multi-million dollar debacles like the Riders case, or the more recent Valerga case (http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_11693707?source=most_viewed)? Or preventing the financial disaster known as Measure OO?

Moreover, the excuse of "oh, but the City is broke" makes about as much sense as the homeless drug addict mugging a law abiding citizen claiming, "oh, but I was hungry." The reality is, the City knew what it was doing was illegal, and did it anyway, because they thought they wouldn't get caught. Regarding the amount of money at issue, I do not believe it is $9 million, like the City claims. I think it is far closer to $15 million - $3.5 million from the $7.7 Recruitment Program adopted in March, and another $11 million or so from monies stolen under the "40% Formula" (see my explanation from my first post).

Gammon goes on to criticize community policing and proclaims that "police brass deserves credit for making it a low priority" and that it only benefits "the wealthy." But making it a "low priority" constituted a violation of the law (i.e., the "police brass" did not have the right to make such a decision), and went against the will of more than two thirds of the voters, most of whom would hardly qualify as "wealthy." Guess Gammon doesn't believe in democracy. I voted for Measure Y because I felt that Oakland's police force was tremendously understaffed, and I appreciated the idea of having at least one officer in my beat who understood the beat and its own particular crime issues. I don't think this sentiment is shared only by the "wealthy." Gammon seems to believe that all the crime in Oakland goes on only in certain parts of the city, and that other parts are immune. Clearly, he doesn't live in Oakland. Does he think that because my neighborhood doesn't have daily shootings, that we don't deserve any police protection at all? While Gammon may not agree with the staffing strategy, it is what the law requires, it is what the voters wanted, and he should just shut up already, or try to change the law himself.

Oh, and speaking of which, he proclaims that the law should be "repealed." The guy has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Under the law, Measure Y needed to be approved by two thirds of the electorate. Does he have any clue about what would be required to repeal the law, and the expense that would entail? Did he even think to ask a lawyer about this minor detail?

He claims that my suit "will either will worsen the city's already dire financial problems or force inexperienced cops into jobs they're not ready to handle." Wrong, on both the law and the facts. My goal has never been to bankrupt the City. Had he spoken to me, I could have told him that. As far as forcing rookie cops into Measure Y positions - that's ludicrous. City policy doesn't allow it, and the City cannot get around the restrictions on Measure Y spending simply by changing a policy that everyone agrees makes sense. Lastly, while the PSO positions may be filled, there are still several Measure Y positions that still have not been filled, nearly five years after the measure passed. This is inexcusable.

The final insult is that I am a "well meaning busybody in the hills with too much time on [my] hands...." Well, if it weren't for people who were committed to their causes, and willing to devote time and effort to achieve their goals, what kind of society would we have? "Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little." - Edmund Burke