"It's a setback in terms of being significant general fund money we may have to pay back," City Council President Jane Brunner said Tuesday. "... I can't fathom where we're going to get the cuts from to balance the budget at this time." This is a quote from the SF Chronicle. The original story that was posted had Jane complaining that this was going to hurt "parks and libraries."
Come on Jane, that doesn't sound like much of an apology to me for violating the law. The City Council voted to approve the recruitment program knowing it was illegal, so they shouldn't act all surprised when a judge rules against them. Nor should they blame the taxpayers who try to hold them accountable and make them sound like the bad guys for taking away "parks and libraries." Give me a break. City officials need to be held accountable, and that is what this suit was about.
Next, the Mayor's office issued a statement that begins as follows: "Fundamental to any civilized society is the right of people to go about their lives with the sense of peace, secruity and safety." Yeah, right, Mr. Dellums. And fundamental to any civilized society is the rule of law, and the right of people to have their elected officials follow the law and not steal their money and lie about it. Interestingly, the Mayor's statement acknowledges that Measure Y requires staffing at 802 officers. But the City is claiming that it didn't violate the law because all officers should be considered "community policing officers," and therefore, Measure Y officers. Too bad for the City that such a statement flies in the face of Resolution 72727 and 79235, both of which give a very specific definition of a community police officer.
You can check out the latest Tribune article about the City's intention to appeal (no surprise) here.