One of the issues that the City lost on in my lawsuit related to the audits required by Measure Y itself and provisions of the Government Code. The City, in an anemic defense, tried to claim that it had actually conducted sufficient audits. The court rejected that argument, finding the documents submitted by the City were wholly inadequate.
On September 15, 2009, a memo was issued to the Office of the City Administrator from the Finance and Management Agency entitled: “Informational Report on Financial and Program Status of Measure Y…for Fiscal Years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009.
http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/.../5766_A__Special_Public_Safety_Committee_09-09-15_Meeting_Agenda.pdf
Near as I can figure, the City is claiming this document is supposed to be the new “audit” to comply with the Court’s order. If you think this is a proper "audit," I've got some Enron stock I'd like to sell you.
Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the Measure Y Oversight Committee and Public Safety Committee meetings, where this embarrassment of a document was discussed. Maybe they picked up on the same issues I did. Somehow, I doubt it, since it appeared on Tuesday’s “Consent Calendar.” I wrote the City Council about my concerns prior to their meeting, but I didn’t hear anything about them pulling the item, so I assume it was approved, glaring mistakes and all. At the risk of seeming like somebody with absolutely nothing better to do than spend her free time pouring over such seemingly boring documents, I’ll lay it all bare for anybody who is interested in how City officials (and their hired accountants) are intentionally trying to (1) hide the theft of millions of dollars and (2) obscure the fact that the City failed to hire the officers we were promised, among other misdeeds.
Financial Audits
Measure Y provides in relevant part that “an independent audit shall be performed to assure accountability and the proper disbursement of the proceeds of this tax in accordance with the objectives stated herein in accordance with Government Code Section 50075.1 and 50075.3.” The proposed audit report incorporates previous financial “audits” conducted in in 05/06-07/08. Those previous “audits” utterly fail to comply with the clear language of Measure Y and the statutes referenced above because they do nothing to ensure that the funds were actually spent only for purposes authorized by Measure Y. My lawsuit successfully demonstrated that the City spent millions of dollars in an unauthorized manner, over every year since the approval of Measure Y. And yet, the “audits” make no mention of this fact. In fact, it is quite clear that the “auditors” made no effort to actually ensure that the monies were spent in accordance with measure Y. How can the “audit” ensure the type of accountability clearly required by Measure Y, and yet not address the fact that a Court found the millions of dollars had been misspent? The “audit” identifies the amounts of money expended; however, there is nothing indicating how the monies were spent, that they were spent appropriately, or how much money was spent illegally. Reintroducing the same “audits” that were found wholly insufficient by the Court in its previous ruling is an insult to the taxpayers and in clear violation of the Court’s order.
Deficiencies in Project Status Reporting
The Government Code and Measure Y clearly require that the annual audits provide the status of each project to be funded. Measure Y specifically calls for 1-3% of funds collected to pay for an “independent evaluation including the number of people served and the rate of crime or violence reduction achieved.”
1. Police Officer Component
a. The attachments provide information for each year regarding police staffing. However, staffing varied tremendously throughout the year. There is no information as to when the staffing numbers were measured (e.g. June v. January).
b. The 06/07 report indicates 5 crime reduction officers were employed. However, in response to a recent request for public records, for all records pertaining to efforts to employ CRT officers since implementation of Measure Y, I was informed that there were “no records” responsive to my request, implying that no such officers were ever employed. Therefore, I question the data provided.
c. For 07/08, over $6000 was spent for CRTs, yet none were employed. How is this explained? For 07/08, officer training, recruitment and equipment is listed as costing over $5,000,000. Yet, there is a $500,000 annual limit on training and equipment, and training can only be in community policing techniques. How is this explained?
d. Moreover, the exhibit contains no reference to the fact that all of this money was apparently spent for officers who were never placed into Measure Y positions, in violation of Measure Y. The audits should at least reference the lawsuit and the amounts of money found to have been illegally spent. How can this “audit” satisfy the accountability purpose of the Government Code and Measure Y itself when there is no reference whatsoever to the lawsuit the City lost? This is incomprehensible.
e. Simply listing a blank space under number of officers employed (when the City never placed officers into these positions, as clearly required by Measure Y) is wholly inadequate to describe the “status” of the project to be funded. At a bare minimum, the “status” should describe the efforts the City was making to satisfy the legal requirements, or, if the City was making no effort, this should also be stated.
2. Violence Prevention Programs
a. As noted above, Measure Y requires the percentage in crime/violence to be provided, along with the number of persons served by the programs. No such data is provided.
b. For 05/06, there are no numbers for the number of people to whom services were provided. The explanation is that “these payments reflect contract advances and payments for staff to attend mandatory trainings.” It is simply unbelievable that the City would spend $2.2 million for violence prevention programs, and not have served a single human being. These figures must be reviewed for accuracy.
3. Fire Services
Measure Y requires $4 million in funding to “maintain staffing and equipment to operate 25 fire engine companies and seven truck companies, expand paramedic services and establish a mentorship program at each station.”
a. For each year listed, there is indication that 25 fire engine and seven truck companies were maintained. However, there is no data whatsoever on the “expansion” of the paramedic services for any year at issue. How exactly were such services expanded, if at all, and using what means? In addition, there is no listing of mentorship programs for each station, and/or when each program was established. There is mention of a “public education program,” but this is not the same as describing the status of the mentorship program at each station. Moreover, each year, more children were served, implying that each year, there may have been stations without the required mentorship programs. This needs to be included in much greater detail in order to satisfy the legal requirements of describing the status of each “project” to be funded.
4. Staff Oversight/Evaluation
For several years listed there is no description of the “status” of the various audits and evaluation programs. At a bare minimum, the chart should describe in narrative form what efforts the City was making, or not making, with respect to hiring an evaluator (e.g. RFP process), and why the City failed to conduct annual audits, as clearly required by the law and Measure Y, or what efforts the City had made. The document references monies expended in each year for an “Audit: FMA & City Auditor.” However, as far as I know, the City Auditor just completed her audit recently, so I cannot understand how funds are referenced for 05/06, and 06/07. This requires explanation. Again, the document is horribly misleading as it makes no reference to the fact that audits were not conducted and that there is currently a Court order requiring that the audits be completed.
The short lesson: when a special tax promises your tax dollars will be spent as promised, because there are "accountability provisions" built in, don't believe them.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
City Auditor Refuses To Conduct Audit On Amounts Owed Back To Measure Y
According to City Auditor Courtney Ruby’s website, the purpose of the City Auditor is to identify areas of fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement, and to ensure transparency, accountability and integrity. Ms. Ruby is supposed to be the citizens’ “watchdog.“ But for whatever reason, she is refusing to look into the biggest example of fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement in the City’s history - our City officials' theft of approximately $15 million from Measure Y.
The $15 million figure is an estimate. As I have clarified early, it is a combination of the approximately $3.3 million spent so far out of the $7.7 million Augmented Recruitment Program, and the monies spent under the “40% formula." The “40% formula” was used by the City for years to pay for the recruitment and training of non-Measure Y officers, by subsidizing all such expenditures to the tune of 40% from Measure Y. The Court found this practice illegal. I took the City’s own estimates on how much it costs to recruit, hire and train a new officer, and multiplied that by the number of officers hired since January, 2005, and then multiplied that number by 40%. It works out to around $11-12 million. The City, on the other hand, claims the amount owed back is closer to $11-12 million total. I have recently conducted Public Records Act requests to get the background documentation on the amounts spent under the $7.7 million Recruitment Program, and as usual, the City is objecting and delaying. Bottom line, there’s a significant dispute about the amount of money owed.
Who better to conduct an independent review of the actual amount owed than the City Auditor? So I a few weeks ago I met with her to discuss the possibility of her conducting such an audit. She said she needed to consult with “independent legal counsel” to see if doing the audit would be a “conflict of interest,“ given that the issue was the “subject of pending litigation.“ I emphasized that the litigation was essentially over, and that in my opinion, it should hardly matter how the issue was brought to her attention. I mean, what difference does it make if she stumbled upon the issue herself? Or if a whistleblower had raised the issue? Why does it matter that a concerned citizen, who happens to be a lawyer, who spent hundreds of hours of her own time to litigate the issue? How is that a “conflict of interest?" If I was using her services to gather evidence to prove my case, then I would understand such a position. But here, the case is over, and the City has already lost. The only thing still in dispute is the amount at issue. The amount at issue is the amount at issue - doesn't really matter who's asking that the calculations be done or why.
In any event, last week, Ms. Ruby called me back and told me that her “attorney” had advised her that it was a “conflict of interest.“ I tried the same arguments on her. She couldn’t answer. I asked for the name of her “attorney” so that I could ask him/her the same questions. She wouldn’t give it to me. My co-counsel made the same request in writing. No response. Now, I’ve heard the old “my attorney advised me” excuse many times. Usually, this can be translated to, “I don‘t want to admit that this was really my idea,” or “my attorney, who is imaginary,” or “my attorney, who I haven‘t hired yet, but who, when I do, will hopefully give me this advice.” My attorney, my foot. Now, if she had said, “Marleen, the problem is, my budget just got cut, and I just don‘t have the resources,” well, then, I would have respected it. But when somebody gives me a response that I just don‘t believe, and won‘t give me the name of her attorney to back up her story, well, I just can‘t help but think that the City Auditor is not as committed to honesty, integrity and transparency as she claims to be.
The $15 million figure is an estimate. As I have clarified early, it is a combination of the approximately $3.3 million spent so far out of the $7.7 million Augmented Recruitment Program, and the monies spent under the “40% formula." The “40% formula” was used by the City for years to pay for the recruitment and training of non-Measure Y officers, by subsidizing all such expenditures to the tune of 40% from Measure Y. The Court found this practice illegal. I took the City’s own estimates on how much it costs to recruit, hire and train a new officer, and multiplied that by the number of officers hired since January, 2005, and then multiplied that number by 40%. It works out to around $11-12 million. The City, on the other hand, claims the amount owed back is closer to $11-12 million total. I have recently conducted Public Records Act requests to get the background documentation on the amounts spent under the $7.7 million Recruitment Program, and as usual, the City is objecting and delaying. Bottom line, there’s a significant dispute about the amount of money owed.
Who better to conduct an independent review of the actual amount owed than the City Auditor? So I a few weeks ago I met with her to discuss the possibility of her conducting such an audit. She said she needed to consult with “independent legal counsel” to see if doing the audit would be a “conflict of interest,“ given that the issue was the “subject of pending litigation.“ I emphasized that the litigation was essentially over, and that in my opinion, it should hardly matter how the issue was brought to her attention. I mean, what difference does it make if she stumbled upon the issue herself? Or if a whistleblower had raised the issue? Why does it matter that a concerned citizen, who happens to be a lawyer, who spent hundreds of hours of her own time to litigate the issue? How is that a “conflict of interest?" If I was using her services to gather evidence to prove my case, then I would understand such a position. But here, the case is over, and the City has already lost. The only thing still in dispute is the amount at issue. The amount at issue is the amount at issue - doesn't really matter who's asking that the calculations be done or why.
In any event, last week, Ms. Ruby called me back and told me that her “attorney” had advised her that it was a “conflict of interest.“ I tried the same arguments on her. She couldn’t answer. I asked for the name of her “attorney” so that I could ask him/her the same questions. She wouldn’t give it to me. My co-counsel made the same request in writing. No response. Now, I’ve heard the old “my attorney advised me” excuse many times. Usually, this can be translated to, “I don‘t want to admit that this was really my idea,” or “my attorney, who is imaginary,” or “my attorney, who I haven‘t hired yet, but who, when I do, will hopefully give me this advice.” My attorney, my foot. Now, if she had said, “Marleen, the problem is, my budget just got cut, and I just don‘t have the resources,” well, then, I would have respected it. But when somebody gives me a response that I just don‘t believe, and won‘t give me the name of her attorney to back up her story, well, I just can‘t help but think that the City Auditor is not as committed to honesty, integrity and transparency as she claims to be.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Measure Y Performance Audit - Part Deux
Earlier this month City Auditor Courtney Ruby released her audit on the violence prevention aspects of Measure Y. While my lawsuit was focused on the deficiencies with respect to increased police staffing (which continue to exist), Ms. Ruby’s report led me to further examine problems with the violence prevention programs. In reviewing her report, and in conducting some additional factual and legal research, I believe that not only are there problems and deficiencies with the violence prevention programs, but there are serious illegalities as well, as outlined below:
1. Failure to Comply With Municipal Ordinance Requiring Competitive Bidding
Oakland’s Municipal Code requires that specific procedures be followed in awarding contracts over a specific amount. While the City Auditor’s report noted that the City failed to utilize the RFP process for approximately $1.1 million of grants awarded under Measure Y during the year reviewed, the report did not specifically address the City’s apparent failure to comply with the Municipal Code regarding competitive bidding.
Section 2.04.015 states that all contracts for services are governed by the ordinance. There would appear to be no exception for grants under Measure Y. Indeed, Section 2.04.020 and 2.04.040 specifically place additional restrictions on expenditure of funds for contracts “that are or will be funded, directly or indirectly, by funds generated by a voter-approved measure…” (See 2.04.020(d).)
Section 2.04.040 specifies the required contracting procedures for contracts between $500 and $50,000, and those over $50,000. Notably, the vast majority of contracts awarded to Measure Y grantees are in excess of $50,000. Subsection (B) requires that for any contract in excess of $50,000, formal advertising and bidding are required. For contracts under $50,000, informal advertising and bidding are required. Section 2.04.051 requires that for professional services in excess of $25,000, an RFP process is required. Subsection B provides: “Upon a finding by the City Council or its designee that it is in the best interests of the city, the City Council may waive the requirement of an RFP or RFQ process.”
There is nothing in the City Auditor’s report indicating that the City Council ever made a finding that it was in the best interests of the city to waive the RFP process. Therefore, it appears that approximately $1,126,711 was awarded in the time period reviewed by the City Auditor, in violation of the City’s own municipal code.
The purpose of requiring governmental entities to open the contracts process to public bidding is to eliminate favoritism, fraud and corruption; avoid misuse of public funds, and stimulate advantageous market place competition. Numerous courts have held that contracts awarded without strict compliance with bidding requirements will be set aside. This preventative approach is applied even where it is certain that there was in fact no corruption or adverse effect upon the bidding process. Nor does the law draw a distinction between cases where there was a defect in the bidding process, as opposed to an absence of competitive bidding. It is settled law that no payments of any kind can be made where the agency was without the authority to make the contract.
Based on the law cited above, any contract that was awarded without complying with the City’s own ordinance is arguably void.
2. Award of Contracts Not Authorized By Measure Y, Part I, Section 3(2)
The language in Measure Y dealing with violence prevention reads as follows: “Violence Prevention Services With An Emphasis on Youth and Children: Expand preventive social services provided by the City of Oakland, or by adding capacity to community -based nonprofit programs with demonstrated past success for the following objectives:
a. Youth outreach counselors: hire and train personnel who will reach out, counsel and mentor at-risk adolescents and young adults by providing services and presenting employment opportunities;
b. After and in school program for youth and children: expand existing City programs and City supported programs that provide recreational, academic tutoring and mentoring opportunities for at-risk adolescents and children during after school hours; expand truancy enforcement programs to keep kids in school.
c. Domestic violence and child abuse counselors: make available counselors who will team with police and the criminal justice system to assist victims of domestic violence or child prostitution and to find services that help to avoid repeat abuse situations; expand early childhood intervention programs for children exposed to violence in the home at an early age.
d. Offender/parolee employment training: provide parolee pre-release employment skills training and provide employers with wage incentives to hire and train young offenders or parolees….
The language cited above is quite specific. Therefore, while programs may indeed be geared toward violence prevention, only those programs that satisfy the objectives cited above may legally be funded by Measure Y. A brief review of several of the contracts that have been approved indicates that they do not fit within the four categories specified above.
1. Safe House for Sexually Exploited Minors
On May 2, 2006 the City Council approved $225,000 in Measure Y funds for the construction of a “Safe House for Sexually Exploited Minors.” Apparently as of May, 2009, no location had been found, but the County had located a property and requested an additional one year to claim the funds. Notably, Measure Y does not authorize any funding for purchasing or renovating a building for such a purpose.
2. Volunteers of America, Bay Area
According to a memo dated May 26, 2009 from DHS, this agency was requesting $222,000 of Measure Y funds for “providing intensive case management services for 50 young adults both pre-release (San Quentin State Prison) and post release. Services include life planning, cognitive re-structuring and support groups, mental/substance abuse assessments, and refers to other wrap around services (housing, employment, education etc.)” Notably, the only services that may be offered to offender/parolees under Measure Y relate to employment. “Cognitive restructuring” and substance abuse counseling are in no way authorized under the clear language of Measure Y.
3. The Mentoring Center
According to the May 26, 2009 memo to the Council, the Mentoring Center was requesting $111,000 for identical services as VOA. For the same reasons, the grant should never have been authorized by Measure Y.
4. “Incident/Crisis Response”
It appears that for several years Measure Y funds have been used under the generic heading of “Incident/Crisis Response.” While such programs may serve the goal of violence prevention, they are not necessarily targeted at youth or children, nor do they fall within the four very specific categories specified above. Therefore, violence prevention programs funded by Measure Y for these purposes was not authorized, as detailed below.
A. Mayor’s Street Outreach
On November 13, 2007, Public Safety Director Lenore Anderson issued a memo describing street-based outreach as “a strategy that calls on community members who are familiar with the neighborhoods most impacted by violence and skilled at conflict mediation, intervention, and mentorship to walk the streets seeking to connect with youth and adults involved in the street life. Street outreach workers get to know the youth and adults, give them opportunities to get off the street, and work to resolve conflicts before violence erupts.” The memo sought $375,000 from Measure Y funds to support the program.
Additional funds were appropriated from Measure Y in 2008, and for the 09/10 fiscal year, the City sought a total of $643,800, to be distributed to California Youth Outreach, Healthy Oakland, and Youth Uprising. A description of the services to be provided by these organizations (as outlined in the May 26, 2009 memo from DHS) makes it clear that none of the services provided were targeted at the four categories of violence prevention programs authorized by Measure Y.
b. Crisis Response Support Network
According to the May 26, 2009 DHS memo, CRSN “is designed to be a community-based, neighbor-to-neighbor support system for friends and family members who are affected by a young person’s (age 30 and below) homicide. It provides general comfort as well as support for basic needs, assistance with funeral arrangements, professional mental health services and referrals to outside organizations. CRSN also works with friends and families to contain retaliation and provide opportunities for hearing.” While these may be valuable services, they are not authorized by Measure Y, and it is difficult to even argue that they are even violence prevention programs.
The services were to be provided by Catholic Charities of the East Bay, and the amount of the grant was $310,800, for 09/10. It is my understanding that similar grants were made in previous years for identical services, as outlined in the City Auditor’s report (e.g. $300,000 in 07/08).
5. City/County Neighborhood Initiative (CCNI)
According to the May 26, 2009 DHS memo, the City Administrator’s Office “will be funded to expand neighborhood organizing in the three Public Safety Districts, working closely with the Mayor’s Public Safety Coordinator on organizing efforts. Through CCNI, community builders work closely with teams of service agencies including the Service Delivery System (SDS) Teams, Neighborhood Services Coordinators, Y Teams, County agencies, schools, and local non-profit agencies…..” While community organizing may be nice, funding such a program clearly does not fall within any of the recognized objectives of Measure Y. Nevertheless, the City approved $133,200 for this goal for 09/10. According to the City Auditor’s report, $196,485 was approved in 07/08.
6. Public Safety Districts
According to the May 26, 2009 DHS memo, “The Mayor’s Office will be provided funding to support violence prevention efforts in the three Public Safety Districts. Efforts will focus on communication, coordination of existing services, gap analyses, and creating tool kits for neighborhoods, through activates such as involving faith-based agencies in violence prevention messaging and convening a youth summit.” The City Council approved $30,000 for this purpose in 09/10, despite the fact that such programs do not fit within any of the four goals outlined in Measure Y.
7. Violence Prevention Network Coordinator
According to the May 26, 2009 DHS memo, “DHS houses this position, which provides on-going training, support and coordination for agencies funded under the street outreach strategy. In addition, this position plays a vital role in ensuring all Measure Y program services develop a relationship with Oakland Police Department thereby ensuring the enforcement and intervention investments under Measure Y are working together to create a safe Oakland. A position with a selective certification in Street Outreach Criminal Justice will be established….” The City Council approved $133,2000 of Measure Y funds for this purpose, despite the fact that it in no way meets any of the four designated criteria for funding.
This is just a sampling of the abuses in Measure Y funding for violence prevention. While all of these programs may support the goal of violence prevention, that is simply not enough. Measure Y only authorized expenditures for the four limited categories specified in the Measure. Even the limited sampling noted above comes to a total of over $2 million that was taken from Measure Y, despite the fact that it did not fit within any of the four categories. A more thorough audit of Measure Y expenditures would likely reveal that many more millions of dollars were allocated to generic violence prevention programs, in violation of Measure Y.
The above illustrates the hazards of special taxes. In order to get the approval of voters, voters must be persuaded that their money will be used for projects that would otherwise not get funded, and that there will be accountability. But in the end, it appears that the City decided it could use the money for whatever it wanted, despite the limitations imposed under the Measure.
1. Failure to Comply With Municipal Ordinance Requiring Competitive Bidding
Oakland’s Municipal Code requires that specific procedures be followed in awarding contracts over a specific amount. While the City Auditor’s report noted that the City failed to utilize the RFP process for approximately $1.1 million of grants awarded under Measure Y during the year reviewed, the report did not specifically address the City’s apparent failure to comply with the Municipal Code regarding competitive bidding.
Section 2.04.015 states that all contracts for services are governed by the ordinance. There would appear to be no exception for grants under Measure Y. Indeed, Section 2.04.020 and 2.04.040 specifically place additional restrictions on expenditure of funds for contracts “that are or will be funded, directly or indirectly, by funds generated by a voter-approved measure…” (See 2.04.020(d).)
Section 2.04.040 specifies the required contracting procedures for contracts between $500 and $50,000, and those over $50,000. Notably, the vast majority of contracts awarded to Measure Y grantees are in excess of $50,000. Subsection (B) requires that for any contract in excess of $50,000, formal advertising and bidding are required. For contracts under $50,000, informal advertising and bidding are required. Section 2.04.051 requires that for professional services in excess of $25,000, an RFP process is required. Subsection B provides: “Upon a finding by the City Council or its designee that it is in the best interests of the city, the City Council may waive the requirement of an RFP or RFQ process.”
There is nothing in the City Auditor’s report indicating that the City Council ever made a finding that it was in the best interests of the city to waive the RFP process. Therefore, it appears that approximately $1,126,711 was awarded in the time period reviewed by the City Auditor, in violation of the City’s own municipal code.
The purpose of requiring governmental entities to open the contracts process to public bidding is to eliminate favoritism, fraud and corruption; avoid misuse of public funds, and stimulate advantageous market place competition. Numerous courts have held that contracts awarded without strict compliance with bidding requirements will be set aside. This preventative approach is applied even where it is certain that there was in fact no corruption or adverse effect upon the bidding process. Nor does the law draw a distinction between cases where there was a defect in the bidding process, as opposed to an absence of competitive bidding. It is settled law that no payments of any kind can be made where the agency was without the authority to make the contract.
Based on the law cited above, any contract that was awarded without complying with the City’s own ordinance is arguably void.
2. Award of Contracts Not Authorized By Measure Y, Part I, Section 3(2)
The language in Measure Y dealing with violence prevention reads as follows: “Violence Prevention Services With An Emphasis on Youth and Children: Expand preventive social services provided by the City of Oakland, or by adding capacity to community -based nonprofit programs with demonstrated past success for the following objectives:
a. Youth outreach counselors: hire and train personnel who will reach out, counsel and mentor at-risk adolescents and young adults by providing services and presenting employment opportunities;
b. After and in school program for youth and children: expand existing City programs and City supported programs that provide recreational, academic tutoring and mentoring opportunities for at-risk adolescents and children during after school hours; expand truancy enforcement programs to keep kids in school.
c. Domestic violence and child abuse counselors: make available counselors who will team with police and the criminal justice system to assist victims of domestic violence or child prostitution and to find services that help to avoid repeat abuse situations; expand early childhood intervention programs for children exposed to violence in the home at an early age.
d. Offender/parolee employment training: provide parolee pre-release employment skills training and provide employers with wage incentives to hire and train young offenders or parolees….
The language cited above is quite specific. Therefore, while programs may indeed be geared toward violence prevention, only those programs that satisfy the objectives cited above may legally be funded by Measure Y. A brief review of several of the contracts that have been approved indicates that they do not fit within the four categories specified above.
1. Safe House for Sexually Exploited Minors
On May 2, 2006 the City Council approved $225,000 in Measure Y funds for the construction of a “Safe House for Sexually Exploited Minors.” Apparently as of May, 2009, no location had been found, but the County had located a property and requested an additional one year to claim the funds. Notably, Measure Y does not authorize any funding for purchasing or renovating a building for such a purpose.
2. Volunteers of America, Bay Area
According to a memo dated May 26, 2009 from DHS, this agency was requesting $222,000 of Measure Y funds for “providing intensive case management services for 50 young adults both pre-release (San Quentin State Prison) and post release. Services include life planning, cognitive re-structuring and support groups, mental/substance abuse assessments, and refers to other wrap around services (housing, employment, education etc.)” Notably, the only services that may be offered to offender/parolees under Measure Y relate to employment. “Cognitive restructuring” and substance abuse counseling are in no way authorized under the clear language of Measure Y.
3. The Mentoring Center
According to the May 26, 2009 memo to the Council, the Mentoring Center was requesting $111,000 for identical services as VOA. For the same reasons, the grant should never have been authorized by Measure Y.
4. “Incident/Crisis Response”
It appears that for several years Measure Y funds have been used under the generic heading of “Incident/Crisis Response.” While such programs may serve the goal of violence prevention, they are not necessarily targeted at youth or children, nor do they fall within the four very specific categories specified above. Therefore, violence prevention programs funded by Measure Y for these purposes was not authorized, as detailed below.
A. Mayor’s Street Outreach
On November 13, 2007, Public Safety Director Lenore Anderson issued a memo describing street-based outreach as “a strategy that calls on community members who are familiar with the neighborhoods most impacted by violence and skilled at conflict mediation, intervention, and mentorship to walk the streets seeking to connect with youth and adults involved in the street life. Street outreach workers get to know the youth and adults, give them opportunities to get off the street, and work to resolve conflicts before violence erupts.” The memo sought $375,000 from Measure Y funds to support the program.
Additional funds were appropriated from Measure Y in 2008, and for the 09/10 fiscal year, the City sought a total of $643,800, to be distributed to California Youth Outreach, Healthy Oakland, and Youth Uprising. A description of the services to be provided by these organizations (as outlined in the May 26, 2009 memo from DHS) makes it clear that none of the services provided were targeted at the four categories of violence prevention programs authorized by Measure Y.
b. Crisis Response Support Network
According to the May 26, 2009 DHS memo, CRSN “is designed to be a community-based, neighbor-to-neighbor support system for friends and family members who are affected by a young person’s (age 30 and below) homicide. It provides general comfort as well as support for basic needs, assistance with funeral arrangements, professional mental health services and referrals to outside organizations. CRSN also works with friends and families to contain retaliation and provide opportunities for hearing.” While these may be valuable services, they are not authorized by Measure Y, and it is difficult to even argue that they are even violence prevention programs.
The services were to be provided by Catholic Charities of the East Bay, and the amount of the grant was $310,800, for 09/10. It is my understanding that similar grants were made in previous years for identical services, as outlined in the City Auditor’s report (e.g. $300,000 in 07/08).
5. City/County Neighborhood Initiative (CCNI)
According to the May 26, 2009 DHS memo, the City Administrator’s Office “will be funded to expand neighborhood organizing in the three Public Safety Districts, working closely with the Mayor’s Public Safety Coordinator on organizing efforts. Through CCNI, community builders work closely with teams of service agencies including the Service Delivery System (SDS) Teams, Neighborhood Services Coordinators, Y Teams, County agencies, schools, and local non-profit agencies…..” While community organizing may be nice, funding such a program clearly does not fall within any of the recognized objectives of Measure Y. Nevertheless, the City approved $133,200 for this goal for 09/10. According to the City Auditor’s report, $196,485 was approved in 07/08.
6. Public Safety Districts
According to the May 26, 2009 DHS memo, “The Mayor’s Office will be provided funding to support violence prevention efforts in the three Public Safety Districts. Efforts will focus on communication, coordination of existing services, gap analyses, and creating tool kits for neighborhoods, through activates such as involving faith-based agencies in violence prevention messaging and convening a youth summit.” The City Council approved $30,000 for this purpose in 09/10, despite the fact that such programs do not fit within any of the four goals outlined in Measure Y.
7. Violence Prevention Network Coordinator
According to the May 26, 2009 DHS memo, “DHS houses this position, which provides on-going training, support and coordination for agencies funded under the street outreach strategy. In addition, this position plays a vital role in ensuring all Measure Y program services develop a relationship with Oakland Police Department thereby ensuring the enforcement and intervention investments under Measure Y are working together to create a safe Oakland. A position with a selective certification in Street Outreach Criminal Justice will be established….” The City Council approved $133,2000 of Measure Y funds for this purpose, despite the fact that it in no way meets any of the four designated criteria for funding.
This is just a sampling of the abuses in Measure Y funding for violence prevention. While all of these programs may support the goal of violence prevention, that is simply not enough. Measure Y only authorized expenditures for the four limited categories specified in the Measure. Even the limited sampling noted above comes to a total of over $2 million that was taken from Measure Y, despite the fact that it did not fit within any of the four categories. A more thorough audit of Measure Y expenditures would likely reveal that many more millions of dollars were allocated to generic violence prevention programs, in violation of Measure Y.
The above illustrates the hazards of special taxes. In order to get the approval of voters, voters must be persuaded that their money will be used for projects that would otherwise not get funded, and that there will be accountability. But in the end, it appears that the City decided it could use the money for whatever it wanted, despite the limitations imposed under the Measure.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Oakland’s New Eco-Policy: Keeping Citizens in the Dark
Under both state law (the California Pubic Records Act) and Oakland’s own “Sunshine Ordinance,” members of the public - that means anyone - can request public documents. Upon receipt of such a request, the City is obligated to respond, in writing, within 10 days, with an anticipated date the records will be made available. Under limited circumstances, the City can give itself an additional 14 days, and all records must be made available, unless they fall within very limited exceptions. That’s the state law. And City Attorney John Russo boasts that he wrote Oakland’s Sunshine Ordinance to make documents even more accessible to Oaklanders. His own website proclaims: “John Russo is a life-long Democrat dedicated to transparency in government and civic reform.” Actions speak louder than words, so let's take a look at those actions.
Since March, I’ve submitted a total of seven public records requests to the City, all related to implementation of Measure Y, how the City is responding to the judge’s decision in my lawsuit, and neighborhood crime issues. Over and over again, I failed to receive responses within the 10 day time limit. I’d remind them. I’d nag them. I even reminded them I’m a public sector attorney during the day and I pretty much do the same job they do, and I know exactly what the requirements are, and they weren’t meeting them. Still no compliance. When I finally did get records, they’d be missing tons of information (like attachments to e-mails) and were full of black ink where relevant information had been “redacted.” I wrote long letters outlining their legal obligations. No response. I warned them if things didn’t get better, I’d file a complaint with the Public Ethics Commission. They didn’t, so I made good on my promise. Today I sent them a copy of my complaint, hoping they’d see the light. They didn’t, and apparently they want to make sure none of you see it either. The light of day promised by the “Sunshine Ordinance,” that is.
One of my requests asked for the e-mail addresses of members of the Measure Y Oversight Committee. First, I directed my request to City Administrator staff person Jeff Baker. He ignored me. I sent another e-mail, asking again. This time, he said he wouldn’t provide the information, because it wasn’t “public.” I then sent a more formal request to the City Attorney’s office. Still nothing. After receiving my Public Ethics complaint today, I finally got a response. Not the one I was hoping for, however. Your City Attorney, so committed to “open government,” accessibility, and rooting out corruption, blah, blah, blah, won’t even provide e-mail addresses of public officials! Can you believe it? They can’t cite to a single exception in the Public Records Act that supports their position. Rather, they’re claiming the members of the Oversight Committee (who are publicly appointed by the Mayor and members of the City Council) have a “constitutional right to privacy” and the City Attorney’s office must personally contact each and every one of them to find out if they will consent to giving me their e-mail address. Are you kidding? Want to know why the City is broke? It is the result of lunacy and hypocrisy like this.
Here I am, the big, bad, litigious lawyer who totally knows what she’s doing, has already succeeded in one of the highest stakes lawsuits in the City's history, and this is how they deal with me. They ignore me. They give me bogus excuses. They waste their time and your tax dollars researching non-existent legal theories to prevent us from contacting our own public officials. Just think how they deal with public records requests from Joe Q. Public? Straight into the circular file? I can’t wait for a hearing before the Public Ethics Commission to expose their tactics. (Or will they tell me the location of the hearing is “confidential” and won’t be provided?)
Since March, I’ve submitted a total of seven public records requests to the City, all related to implementation of Measure Y, how the City is responding to the judge’s decision in my lawsuit, and neighborhood crime issues. Over and over again, I failed to receive responses within the 10 day time limit. I’d remind them. I’d nag them. I even reminded them I’m a public sector attorney during the day and I pretty much do the same job they do, and I know exactly what the requirements are, and they weren’t meeting them. Still no compliance. When I finally did get records, they’d be missing tons of information (like attachments to e-mails) and were full of black ink where relevant information had been “redacted.” I wrote long letters outlining their legal obligations. No response. I warned them if things didn’t get better, I’d file a complaint with the Public Ethics Commission. They didn’t, so I made good on my promise. Today I sent them a copy of my complaint, hoping they’d see the light. They didn’t, and apparently they want to make sure none of you see it either. The light of day promised by the “Sunshine Ordinance,” that is.
One of my requests asked for the e-mail addresses of members of the Measure Y Oversight Committee. First, I directed my request to City Administrator staff person Jeff Baker. He ignored me. I sent another e-mail, asking again. This time, he said he wouldn’t provide the information, because it wasn’t “public.” I then sent a more formal request to the City Attorney’s office. Still nothing. After receiving my Public Ethics complaint today, I finally got a response. Not the one I was hoping for, however. Your City Attorney, so committed to “open government,” accessibility, and rooting out corruption, blah, blah, blah, won’t even provide e-mail addresses of public officials! Can you believe it? They can’t cite to a single exception in the Public Records Act that supports their position. Rather, they’re claiming the members of the Oversight Committee (who are publicly appointed by the Mayor and members of the City Council) have a “constitutional right to privacy” and the City Attorney’s office must personally contact each and every one of them to find out if they will consent to giving me their e-mail address. Are you kidding? Want to know why the City is broke? It is the result of lunacy and hypocrisy like this.
Here I am, the big, bad, litigious lawyer who totally knows what she’s doing, has already succeeded in one of the highest stakes lawsuits in the City's history, and this is how they deal with me. They ignore me. They give me bogus excuses. They waste their time and your tax dollars researching non-existent legal theories to prevent us from contacting our own public officials. Just think how they deal with public records requests from Joe Q. Public? Straight into the circular file? I can’t wait for a hearing before the Public Ethics Commission to expose their tactics. (Or will they tell me the location of the hearing is “confidential” and won’t be provided?)
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Assaults on Measure Y Domestic Violence Programs
Last week, City Auditor Courtney Ruby issued her audit related to the City’s compliance with the violence prevention aspects of Measure Y, the special tax approved by voters in 2004. The deficiencies outlined in the report highlight a pattern of abuse of public funds going all the way back to the City’s initial placement of the proposal on the ballot. Measure Y was meant to provide 63 additional police officers and to provide $8 million annually to fund specific types of violence prevention programs. When the proposal was put to the voters, City officials “guaranteed” that we would get a police force of 802 officers. The City’s own website promised that it wouldn’t collect the tax unless at least 739 officers (the authorized strength at the time) were employed. Measure Y promised accountability in the form of annual audits, and a citizen “oversight committee.”
For the next several years, the size of the police force kept dropping, and the City, betraying its promise, collected the tax anyway, claiming that as long as money was “appropriated” for the officers, it didn’t have to actually hire them. The vast majority of the Measure Y “problem solving officer” positions remained unfilled. The audits never got done. Last year, Ron Dellums, facing political pressure for not doing enough about crime, took $7.7 million from the Measure Y fund to spend on recruitment and training of new officers, none of whom were ever going to be placed into Measure Y positions. I ended up suing the City, for this and numerous other abuses of the Measure Y fund. Last spring I prevailed, and now the City must repay approximately $15 million to the Measure Y fund, and perform the back audits. The City is contemplating an appeal, which would only result in delay, more rapid depletion of the Measure Y fund, and another $3 million debt in interest alone.
Recently, the City Attorney gave props to the Mayor for getting the police force up to 802 officers, neglecting to mention that the only way he got there was by stealing money he never had any right to take in the first place. Now, the police force is under 799 and dropping, with no academies scheduled or even budgeted for to replace officers lost by attrition. In a matter of months, the force will be back to levels prior to Dellums’ illegal grab. With the new City Auditor’s report, we now find out (1) that the City was doling out millions of Measure Y funds to various agencies without the required “Request for Proposals” that are needed to guarantee that the City obtains the best prices and services; and (2) that the City was paying the Measure Y grantees whatever they were charging, without making sure they were doing what they were supposed to do. Worse yet, the City failed to implement safeguards to ensure that the services were being provided only to Oakland residents.
Knowing what I know now about how the City lies to taxpayers, and uses the money for whatever it wants, I could never again support any special tax put before Oakland voters. Oakland residents should demand that their elected officials be held accountable for the abuse and waste, and not allow the Council to pass the problems on to them.
For the next several years, the size of the police force kept dropping, and the City, betraying its promise, collected the tax anyway, claiming that as long as money was “appropriated” for the officers, it didn’t have to actually hire them. The vast majority of the Measure Y “problem solving officer” positions remained unfilled. The audits never got done. Last year, Ron Dellums, facing political pressure for not doing enough about crime, took $7.7 million from the Measure Y fund to spend on recruitment and training of new officers, none of whom were ever going to be placed into Measure Y positions. I ended up suing the City, for this and numerous other abuses of the Measure Y fund. Last spring I prevailed, and now the City must repay approximately $15 million to the Measure Y fund, and perform the back audits. The City is contemplating an appeal, which would only result in delay, more rapid depletion of the Measure Y fund, and another $3 million debt in interest alone.
Recently, the City Attorney gave props to the Mayor for getting the police force up to 802 officers, neglecting to mention that the only way he got there was by stealing money he never had any right to take in the first place. Now, the police force is under 799 and dropping, with no academies scheduled or even budgeted for to replace officers lost by attrition. In a matter of months, the force will be back to levels prior to Dellums’ illegal grab. With the new City Auditor’s report, we now find out (1) that the City was doling out millions of Measure Y funds to various agencies without the required “Request for Proposals” that are needed to guarantee that the City obtains the best prices and services; and (2) that the City was paying the Measure Y grantees whatever they were charging, without making sure they were doing what they were supposed to do. Worse yet, the City failed to implement safeguards to ensure that the services were being provided only to Oakland residents.
Knowing what I know now about how the City lies to taxpayers, and uses the money for whatever it wants, I could never again support any special tax put before Oakland voters. Oakland residents should demand that their elected officials be held accountable for the abuse and waste, and not allow the Council to pass the problems on to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
