Well, apparently not everybody agrees on that. Council President Jane Brunner announced at the beginning of the meeting that Measure Y was “off the table.” Huh? How can the City adopt a budget that includes 80 cop layoffs and then claim Measure Y is safe? Okay, so I know Measure Y has (or had, last time I checked) a fund balance, but I wouldn’t have assumed it was enough to carry everybody through to November. Moreover, there appeared to be no discussion of how to notify all the necessary agencies (e.g. Alameda County Tax Collector, parking facilities) that they needed to stop collecting Measure Y funds effective July 1.
According to documents the City (finally) produced to me yesterday, it appears that the City’s plan is to continue collecting Measure Y taxes, hoping that voters will approve a measure in November to “fix” Measure Y. The “fix” entails allowing the City to keep collecting the tax even though it has laid off officers. Even the folks at Make Oakland Better Now don’t think that will pass. But the idea that the City can justify collecting Measure Y based on hope, rather than actual appropriation, as Measure Y requires? Well, that takes their shenanigans to a whole new level.
Yesterday I shot off an email to the powers that be that I thought this plan was totally illegal, and that they were asking for another lawsuit. It was a bit difficult to follow what Dellums was saying at the beginning of the meeting, but he seemed to imply that even he didn’t think that this was such a great plan, and that the City was risking additional litigation. Wow.
OPOA’s robo call totally backfired. It was clear that most folks wanted to keep officers, but make the officers pay their fair share. I totally agree with that.
There were a ton of speakers, and massively complicated and controversial proposals in front of them. And somehow, the Council managed to discuss everything and come to a vote in a matter of minutes. It was truly shocking. It was like everything had been decided in the back rooms days before. Like the Brown Act didn’t even exist.
So in the end, the Council approved a layoff of 80 cops. At $180,000 per cop (the City’s numbers) that’s only $14.4 million. They have lost $20 million in the process. So how, exactly, does that save the City any money? I totally don’t get the City’s math. Not that it would be the first time for that, but…. By my calculations, the City needs to lay off 111 cops just to break even for the Measure Y $20 million. And that doesn’t take into consideration the money they’ll lose from COPS. Can anybody out there explain to me what I’m missing?
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The City Council isn't dreaming, it's delusional. There is absolutely no possibility that we voters will agree to amend Measure Y or agree to a new property tax. If nothing else, the City Council has demonstrated beyond a doubt that the citizens of Oakland cannot trust them to spend our money wisely. Thank you Marleen for everything you have done and continue to do for the taxpayers of Oakland.
ReplyDeleteHow could most of the Council acknowledge Brooks (voted NO) comments and questions about the budget and budget process, then, vote for it. She called it "Smoke and Mirrors."
ReplyDeleteNo discussion of the MY NGOs either. I guess they are all hands off too! Millions and millions and no cuts and limited accountability.
How about the Council putting a repeal KidsFirst on the next ballot?
Last year, there was nearly $9M in Pay-Go accounts for the Council Members. At the last budget report, they spent $5M in one year.
The issue of MY NGO's is a good point. That is, if they're going to collect the fees but cancel the minimum # of Officers, they better not also gut the MY funded Officers, the PSO's.
ReplyDeleteIf they're gutting those officers ("temporarily") then they should be gutting the NGO's too, that way they can preserve more officers...
I note MOBN's approach (from their website) to dealing with the deficit includes a MY modification that would both "allow Measure Y funds to continue to be collected to support Neighborhood Beat Officers and violent prevention programs.", on the one hand and "The Chief would be allowed somewhat more flexibility in assigning Neighborhood Beat Officers." on the other hand.
To me that is just the type of obtuse contradiction that will allow the City to say that they aren't cutting PSO's BEFORE the election, but then the Chief can move them around AFTER the election (remember the PSO "borrowing" from the past). While continuing to fund the NGO's. So the NGO's are the only ones that still get funded.
Since Libby Schaaf, ex-IDLF staffer & city-council candidate, is on the board of MOBN, and these suggestions mirror what the City is proposing, it is reasonable to assume that language like this might make it into the City's MY-adjustment proposal.