City Council Announces Appeal of Measure Y Decision

Here's the press release I sent out today. More thoughts later.

Today the Oakland City Attorney’s office informed me that it would be filing a Notice of Appeal today, October 7, 2009, in the decision issued last spring by the Alameda Superior Court, Sacks v. City of Oakland. In that decision, the court found that the City had illegally spent millions of Measure Y dollars. The decision to appeal was authorized in yesterday’s closed session council meeting.

The underlying lawsuit was filed in April 2008, after the City Council voted to approve a $7.7 million “Augmented Recruitment Program” to attract and train new officers to fully staff Oakland’s police department. Because the City did not have the money available in its general fund, the City opted to take the money out of Measure Y, a special tax approved by voters in 2004 to fund 63 additional community policing officers. Because Measure Y taxes were never intended to pay for general police staffing functions (such as recruitment and academy training of non-Measure Y officers), and because of the City’s failure to implement numerous other aspects of Measure Y, including the conducting of annual audits, I sued, and ultimately prevailed.

Had the City not authorized the appeal, it would have had to immediately repay the Measure Y fund an estimated $15 million. This amount represents the money spent out of the augmented recruitment program, as well as the over $10 million in recruitment and training of non-Measure Y officers the City had spent previously. The City, which spent the majority of the last two council meetings dealing with citizen outrage over a mere $1 million in parking meter fees, was clearly unlikely to want to draw attention to the fact that, due to its own mismanagement and illegal actions, it actually still has another $15 million budget hole to address. Therefore, the decision is not unexpected.

The decision to appeal is clearly motivated by the City’s desire to delay payment of the monies owed (because it is broke) and to avoid additional scrutiny of its financial decisions. There are no valid legal grounds for appeal. Even the City’s own attorney, at the time the $7.7 million Augmented Recruitment Program was considered by the Council, had advised against the action, because the recruitment drive was not for Measure Y community policing officers, but rather was for general recruitment. I will argue that the City’s appeal is frivolous, and will also be filing a cross-appeal. If I prevail on my cross appeal, I estimate that the additional liability to the City could be approximately $60-$80 million. In addition, if the City loses its appeal, it will be liable for an estimated $3 million in interest, which accrues on the amount of money the Court has already ordered the City to repay.

The City's decision to appeal is extremely disappointing and represents a continued refusal by City officials to acknowledge their financial mismanagement and ongoing lack of commitment to legal obligations under Measure Y. The police force is currently approximately 7 officers under its authorized strength, and with no police academies scheduled or budgeted for, is likely to decline rapidly. Moreover, the City has never filled the six "Crime Reduction Team" positions required under Measure Y.