Today, Judge Roesch of the Alameda County Superior Court ruled that my lawsuit against the City can proceed. However, he ruled that the City can continue collecting Measure Y taxes while the case proceeds to trial.
The basis of my request for injunctive relief was the fact that the City admits that it has not “appropriated” sufficient funds for police academies, nor has it actually held necessary academies. The City also admits that in order to collect Measure Y taxes, it must at least “appropriate” sufficient funds to maintain a baseline staffing of 739 (non-Measure Y) officers. I argued that because the City is currently broke, if I eventually prevail, the City will need to refund $40 million of taxpayer money, to the taxpayers - money that it doesn’t have. Therefore, I argued, there would be “irreparable harm” to the taxpayers. Admittedly, there is a very high threshold for getting such an injunction, but I am still disappointed to report that the judge declined to grant the injunction.
However, today, for the first time, the City articulated its new defense of its reprehensible conduct: it is claiming it does not need to “appropriate” any money at all for recruitment or academy expenses that are necessary to keep the force at 739. It argues that the word “maintain” in Measure Y only applies to salaries and benefits, not actually doing what is necessary to “maintain” the number at 739 (which would include scheduling regular academies). First, this is completely contrary to the argument the City made in the first lawsuit. More importantly, this is a positively ridiculous argument! The City is basically saying it can allow the police force to drop 55 officers a year (which is how much it would lose every year due to attrition) and this is all perfectly legal under Measure Y! Under such a theory, the force would drop to near zero(!) over the course of the 10 years planned for Measure Y, and they would still be entitled to collect the tax! People, these are the crooks that you have trusted your money to. Can you believe such gobbledegook? No wonder the City is on the verge of bankruptcy!
Watch the KTVU news story here
http://www.ktvu.com/video/23704011/index.html
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So what's next, and what is the time table?
ReplyDeleteAnd stupid crooks to boot.
ReplyDeleteAndy: The case moves forward. The last case took longer than expected, primarily because the City obstructed my right to discovery (i.e. the facts and documents I needed). Expect a full hearing on the merits and decision sometime in the next 6-8 months, hopefully sooner.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is the language. I agree that as long as the city has appropriated funds for 739, then they have met their obligation.
ReplyDeleteIf the city starts the year with 730 officers and only appropriates for 730 officers, then I see a problem because the city has no room to add officers from either an academy or lateral transfer.
But if the city starts the year with 730 officers, but appropriates funds for 739 then the city is planning to pay for 739 officers and has set aside funds for them. The city could make up the difference through lateral transfers. The academy is meaningless.
Ralph: The language of Measure Y requires "appropriation" of sufficient funds "to maintain" 739 officers. The case will likely boil down to the legal definitino of the word "maintain." With attrition at nearly 5 officers a month, the police department cannot "maintain" the number at 739 unless it appropriates funding for and actually schedules academies. In the past, the City has argued that academy training is necessary as a part of "hiring and maintaining" the 63 Measure Y officers, and the judge agreed. The City will have a very difficult time now arguming that "maintain" means something else. The academy is not "meaningless." Without academies, the police force would drop down to zero in a few years. Even laterals must go through academy training.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the language earlier, for the reasons I stated previously, I chuckled about appropriate to maintain language. If you set aside money to pay for a specified number of people but never reach specified number of people, I have fulfilled my obligation; I have appropriated funds to maintain a specified staffing level. Tis is probably not what was intended but it is not how it was worded. If the residents wanted a minimum staffing of 739 people, the people should have said that no tax will be collected unless the city maintains a police force of 739 officers. Then there can be no arguing about maintain. You either had 739 officers or you didn't.
ReplyDelete