Final Decision Issued - Settlement a Ways Off

The judge has issued his modified, final decision. Nothing too dramatic. Basically, the only change is that he held that Measure Y technically would authorize recruitment/hiring/academy training expenses for officers who were deployed to Measure Y positions straight out of the academy. But since that's not what happened, then no such expenses were authorized. This does not change the impact of the lawsuit in any material way, and God forbid the City should decide it is now appropriate to start putting rookie cops into Measure Y positions!

We had our second settlement meeting yesterday, and I don't see anything getting resolved anytime soon. But we're still talking, so that's good. If the case does go up on appeal, the City needs to realize that they are taking a huge risk. First of all, the idea that they could reverse the main issues they lost on (i.e. using approximately $15 million for non-Measure Y purposes and the failure to conduct audits) is ridiculous. Those issues are total no-brainers.

The issues that they could still lose on appeal, however, include some really big ticket items. First, this whole idea of what it means that the City "appropriate" funds for 739 officers in order to collect the tax: the City has claimed throughout this litigation, and Charles Pine's litigation, that all that means is that money be set aside, and there is no requirement that the force actually be staffed at 802. However, all the politicians and others told us taxpayers repeatedly that Measure Y guaranteed a force of 802, and even the City's own website said this! If the City appeals, I'll appeal on this issue, which could mean the City would need to return $60 million to the taxpayers. $60 million!!! Hello City - are you listening?

In addition, one of the other issues - an issue the judge totally dodged - is what it means to "hire and maintain" 63 Measure Y officers, including 6 crime reduction team officers. Those CRT officers still are not employed by the City, as far as I know. That means, for fully 5 years, the City has not complied with this clear mandate of Measure Y. What would the court of appeal rule is an appropriate remedy? How about a return of all the funds used by the City for police services when they didn't provide the police services promised? That's probably another $40 million right there. So we're talking $100 million at stake. My settlement demands to the City are totally reasonable, and I sincerely hope the City considers the possibility of a $100 million debt, and certain bankrupty, as well as the fact that their credibility is already in the toilet, while mulling all of this over. We shall see.

Word for the Day: "Sophistry"

The hearing today was limited to the issue of if, hypothetically, the City were to deploy brand new recruits immediately from academy training to Measure Y positions, what expenses could be charged to Measure Y for their recruitment and academy training? Of course the City has no plans to do so, nor should it, because such an idea is idiocy. Do you want rookie cops on SWAT teams? Of course not. Do you want rookie cops on crime reduction teams? Of course not. Do you want rookie cops performing the specialized services of "problem solving officers?" Of course not. The City has outlined numerous excellent reasons behind the policy of only placing veteran officers into Measure Y positions. The only reason they have raised this hypothetical issue is see if there's some new nefarious way of getting their grubby fingers on Measure Y money. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Does it matter? Even if they could do it, it would be bad, bad policy. Not that that hasn't stopped the City from pursuing countless other ridiculous things, but I digress.

Can't say when we'll get a final ruling. The judge has taken the matter under submission. Our next settlement meeting is scheduled for next Thursday.

Let The Sun Shine In

The concept behind "sunshine" ordinances is to make sure your government conducts its business is the "light of day." Oakland's "sunshine" ordinance actually contains stricter provisions than state law, supposedly in the interests of more open and more accountable government. Yeah, right.

After weeks of insisting that I am entitled to unredacted versions of three e-mails that I requested as part of a Public Records Act request, the City finally capitulated on one of the e-mails. Here's the sentence that they initially claimed was protected by the "attorney-client privilege."
"Have you received Kevin Siegel, Mark Morodomi or Rocio Fierra's opinions yet?" (the e-mail was from Cheryl Taylor to Gilbert Garcia - they're both budget/finance people in the City; not attorneys; however, the three people mentioned in the e-mail are attorneys).

The attorney-client privilege can legitimately be invoked to prevent disclosure of confidential communications between attorney and client; there is simply no way on earth this sentence could ever be interpreted as being protected by the privilege. I'm glad the City finally turned it over, after my griping about it long enough, but it certainly does not inspire confidence in the City's commitment to "open government."

Oh, and the City Attorney wrote me a long letter defending his office's continued refusal to provide documents requested during the discovery phase of my lawsuit (until I won a discovery motion)- all of which were public records and should have been produced without any hesitation. Again, not consistent with the espoused ideal of "open government."

Anyway, my cynicism not withstanding, another settlement meeting has been scheduled for June 18 - six days after the next hearing, scheduled for June 12.