The Oakland Public Ethics Committee website proudly proclaims: “We help ensure that our City government works the way it’s supposed to. The Commission works to promote confidence in our government by making sure you are treated fairly at all times, with honesty and integrity… “ The PEC advertises that it “sets the standard, by example, for ethical conduct.”
I just found out that the way Oakland’s government is supposed to work is to allow politicians to push regular citizens to the side when they think they have a more important issue. And I guess the PEC’s definition of being treated “fairly” is that regular citizens to stand back while more important people, who pay the PEC Executive Director’s salary, get served first. And I am also to presume that “ethical conduct,“ under the PEC’s definition, means ignoring their own rules whenever a politician tells them that’s what they need to do. It’s justice, Oakland style.
These points were brought home over the past couple of days, when I found out that my complaint, which has been pending before the PEC since early September, 2009, and was finally scheduled to be heard on March 1, got shoved to the back of the line because Jean Quan insisted that her complaint get priority. Now, the PEC has very strict rules about processing of complaints and setting hearing dates. But apparently those rules mean nothing when your name is Jean Quan. Then you get to go straight to the front of the line.
My complaint relates to over a dozen separate violations of the California Public Records Act and Oakland’s Sunshine Ordinance. I first wrote about it here. http://defendingmeasurey.blogspot.com/2009/09/oaklands-new-eco-policy-keeping.html
I filed the initial complaint in early September, and since then, the City continued to violate the law on practically every request I submitted. I tried to mediate the dispute, and was successful in finally getting most the records I wanted, but the City completely refused to address the fact that it was not responding in a timely manner, and was failing to adhere to other technical requirements of the law. So I asked that my complaint go forward to hearing.
The PEC has very specific rules that would appear to have been designed to prevent precisely the type of abuse being carried out here. Specifically, one rule provides: “A reporting log shall be maintained by the Commission's staff that chronologically records each complaint…” Another provides: “The Executive Director shall process, review and make recommendations on all complaints expeditiously, and in any event no more than thirty (30) business days of receipt, unless additional time not to exceed fifteen (15) business days is provided by the Chairperson of the Commission ("Chair"). No further extensions shall be permitted except upon approval of the Commission as a whole.”
Recently, City Attorney John Russo proposed doubling the campaign limits in the mayoral election, in light of “instant runoff voting” that will be used in the fall. At a Rules Committee meeting held on February 4, Quan objected to the proposal (apparently fearing it will hurt her campaign more than Perata’s) and asked that the matter be referred to the PEC on an expedited basis. A bunch of other politicos agreed, and voila, PEC Executive Director Dan Purnell agreed to schedule a “special” meeting to consider the matter on March 4. So then I get an email from Mr. Purnell, telling me that because he is so busy, specifically referencing the Quan complaint, that the PEC can’t hear my complaint on March 1. I wrote several indignant emails to Mr. Purnell citing him to the rules addressing timelines, and asked him to point me to the rule that said a politician can jump to the head of the line. Needless to say, he couldn’t cite to any.
Now, I’m not saying that the PEC doesn’t have the authority to schedule a special meeting when the need arises. What I’m saying is that the PEC can’t violate its own timelines for regular citizen complaints, to prioritize the concerns of politicians. That’s not ethical, that’s not fair, and that’s not consistent with the goals of the PEC. And rest assured, I’ll be filing another complaint about that.
But I won’t count on it getting heard anytime soon, and I won’t count on it being considered fairly. After all, I just found out that Mr. Purnell’s recommendation is to dismiss my other complaint, which addresses the fact that members of the Measure Y Oversight Committee NEVER have filed conflict of interest disclosures, and several of them have apparent conflicts of interest. I don’t have time to get into all of that now, but I will in a later post. You can check out Mr. Purnell’s legal opinion here.
http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/public_ethics/March-01-2010/ITEME-4.pdf
I'm beginning to appreciate how the people in Myanmar must feel.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So he seems to be saying first that Measure Y oversight committee members were not required to submit 700s in the past, but yes, now they really do have to, oops, sorry about that, we will let them know.
ReplyDeleteSecond, he seems to be saying that yes, two members of the oversige committee are employees of agencies that get Measure Y funds, but their income doesn't count as a financial interest because there's a special exception excluding income from a governmental agency from being considered a conflict of interest.
And then there's a whole bunch of immaterial legal analysis thrown in, basically all of sections 3(A) and 3(B), which is most of the opinion. Do I have it right? So even under this analysis a Measure Y committee member can't be board of staff of a non-profit that gets Measure Y funds, but they can be employees of a governmental agency that gets Measure Y funds? That doesn't really make sense.
Not that the Measure Y oversight committee makes any sense. I've watched committee meetings on TV. It's clear that they really have no clue what they're doing, they kind of bumble about, raising motions and seconding motions and arguing about whether they have the power to "approve" or only "receive" reports and what that means. You know, generally mangling Roberts Rules of Order and having no clue what authority they have or really what they're supposed to be doing in the first place.
Brad, thanks for feeling my pain. I'll be doing a more thorough post on this later.
ReplyDeleteYou are the greatest Marlene. How screwed up is OAK when the ethics commish clearly acts unethically? I hope you get some results but won't hold my breath.
ReplyDeleteThe ethics commission is screwed up and usually Executive Director Purnell routinely sides with the City no matter how screwed up the decision is. I think that this positions somehow has to be made independent of the rest of government (i.e. like the auditor) for it to work. 90% of the time I feel they get their decisions wrong, either because of the director's report or another technicality. You'd think that 'sunshine' would mean something.
ReplyDeleteI'm so very sorry that you were not heard in a timely manner.