Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Goliath BBeats David

Final results: Yes 70; No 30%

I knew we were in trouble when I read this quote from yesterday's Trib: “Moore… did, however, vote for more police through a parcel tax, and he hopes it goes some way toward improving safety for Oakland’s children.” Too bad there was nothing on the ballot that actually provided for “more police.” This poor slob actually thought one of the measures provided for more police. Then, another reader pointed out that the lone Republican mayoral candidate, Arnie Fields, supported Measure BB because "we need more education."

But the really bad news came at around 7:30 p.m. when some women in my Crucible glass studio lab were talking elections and about how confusing everything was on the ballot. One of them is a graduate of Hastings Law School. I asked her if she happened to see my name in the Voter Information Pamphlet. She said she hadn't. She had no understanding of what the measure would do. (I assume she didn't read the arguments pro and con). She admitted that she was "confused" by the measure. And this is a women who went to law school and passed the bar!

So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the measure passed. After all, the title (which is apparently what most people read, and never get any futher) said: "...at no additional cost...." People read that and think it won't cost them any money. (Watching KTVU news this morning, they repeated this same misinformation).

Voters read that Measure BB "restores" 63 community policing positions, so they think police staffing will go up. It was the sly City Council and City Attorneys who came up with this language, and without another vicious legal battle, there was nothing I could do about it. So the hoodwinking of the public is permitted to continue, and now BB has passed.

I should also mention that the supporters of BB (all the people who stood to benefit financially) probably spent around $100,000 for flyers and websites and whatnot. We spent zero. They had people phone banking and walking neighborhoods. We don't have those kind of resources. They had the endorsements of the all the establishment people. I wish that angry taxpayers like me would be more organized, but we don't have the automatic cash flow and pre-organized PACs that the unions and the non-profits do. It was not a fair fight.

But every cloud has a silver lining. I stopped by the Don Perata party last night and chatted with OPOA President Dom Arotzarena, who assured me that the City would indeed be filling the 63 Measure Y positions right away. According to him, "they have to!" I sure hope he's right. Of course, this means other areas of the police force are going to get decimated, but for those of us who valued our neighborhood PSO, I suppose this is a good thing. In addition, it does give the City a much needed income stream to fund additional police, so I am hopeful that the City will rehire many of the officers laid off earlier this year. Lastly, if Perata is confirmed as mayor, I am hopeful that he will be able to negotiate necessary concessions with the union that will free up additional money necessary to get the force up to where it needs to be. Maybe with some actual leadership in City Hall, by someone who seems to appreciate the value of public safety, we will start making some progress.

In the meantime, however, I will continue with the litigation and my other efforts to keep our government honest and accountable. If the past is any indicator, I have a long and rough road ahead.

4 comments:

  1. Daniel SchulmanNov 3, 2010 09:03 AM

    Does it make sense to rehire right away?

    Obviously the force is severely understaffed and, we need more officers. However, the city still hasn't gotten the two-tier pension concessions and reduced starting salaries. If we hire back under the current system, won't the city lock itself into a worse structural deficit for the lifetimes of those officers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Marleen, I guess a lawsuit over the deceptive wording on BB ("...at no additional cost....") is out of the question? (Because the voter should have read the voter guide. That's what Russo said about the Measure Q tax regarding libraries.)

    Does this mean we can look forward to more parcel taxes for "public safety" based on the notion of hiring police and protecting children? When in fact, it's just a tax on home owners to fill-up the General Fund.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dan, that's a good point. On the other hand, if we don't hire them back soon, they will have found other jobs. According to Dom, around 40 of them have already found new jobs. He also said that batch of officers was really good. Negotiating a two-tier pension system and starting salaries could take quite a while - likely many months. Then we will have lost those officers forever, and we will be out the approximately $125,000 per officer it costs to recruit and train them. All the while, our force will be shrinking due to attrition. By the time there's a new agreement, the force could be down to 620!

    Barry - regarding the deceptive wording: the time to have challenged that would have been way before the election. I only have so much time and money to fight these battles.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The voters did what they always do when they are too lazy to research this issues and learn anything about them. They look at the single sentence in their ballot guides that says "no NEW fiscal impact" and, since they think it's not going to cost them anything, they vote for it. How it is that people who live and pay taxes in this community do not understand Measures Y and BB any better than they do is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete