So we had a formal, Court of Appeal ordered “mediation” last Friday. With the way things are looking, we have a long, slow road ahead of us, and the road appears to be leading to more litigation. Now, as a litigator, I like nothing better than to squash my opponent and bask in the glow of triumph. But this isn’t an ordinary lawsuit. It’s kind of like suing your mom. I mean, you kind of count on your mom to represent your best interests and do what’s best for you, and be smarter and wiser, and lead you down the right path. So when Mom lets you down and turns out to be a crack head and cleans out your piggy bank, and you have to sue her to get your money back, and you win, well, the victory is kind of bittersweet. Actually, it’s mostly kind of sad. The kind of sad case you see on “Judge Judy.” And even sadder when they interview the mom after Judge Judy has rendered her verdict, and Mom still doesn’t get what a morally bankrupt screw up she is. And then she doesn’t even pay you back, because she’s a crack head and doesn’t have any money anyway! Having to sue your mom kind of sucks.
Litigation is a very long, slow, and expensive process. A negotiated settlement, particularly in a case like this, is a much better option for everybody. Seriously, when I started this whole thing, I expected to be dealing with reasonable, rational people, who would quickly realize that I was a concerned citizen, legally savvy, and that the law was on my side. I thought we’d be able to talk. No such luck. The City never gave me the time of day. Even after I won, it was me who asked to meet with them, not the other way around. And it’s been like pulling teeth ever since. All I want them to do is honor the commitments made under Measure Y: 10 years of police staffing at 802, with the 63 Measure Y officers, in exchange for 10 years of Measure Y taxes. Who can look me in the eye and tell me that’s unreasonable, when that’s exactly what Measure Y promised us? Particularly when our new police chief is decrying the current understaffing?
Recently, I’ve actually developed some creative proposals to help the City make the promises of Measure Y a reality. I’ve spent hours of my time talking to various City officials, pouring over budget documents, racking my brain for ways to resolve this case. But I am sad to report that the efforts appear to be entirely one-sided. The City does not seem interested. I guess Mom just hasn’t hit bottom yet. And she’s going to go for my piggy bank again. Yours too.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The Spin Doctor Is IN - And On Your Dime
A couple of months ago, local attorney Gary Sirbu had a “My Word” submission in the Tribune regarding lack of oversight and other abuses on the Measure Y Oversight Committee. For the record, at the time, I didn’t know Mr. Sirbu and had never spoken to him. But I’m always thrilled that there are others out there in the community who get as hot and bothered about Measure Y abuses as I do. Anyway, since then, City officials put the PR machinery into gear to try to refute his claims, and on December 4, 2009, Andrea Youngdahl, Director of the Department of Human Services, had her rebuttal published.
I subsequently sent out two public records requests to find out how and why her submission was composed. Two months and much nagging later (!!) I finally got the documents I sought, and confirmed that Ms. Youngdahl's efforts were with City approval and at City direction. Needless to say, also on City time and at City expense. The headline was “City of Oakland Takes Measure Y Oversight Very Seriously.” Well, if the current state of affairs is evidence of them taking oversight “seriously,” I shudder to think what not taking it seriously might look like.
Mr. Sirbu pointed out that there is a conflict of interest in the selection of the supposedly neutral performance evaluator. Ms. Youngdahl, in her piece, claimed that the City Administrator’s office “uses a panel of outside experts, not city staff, to interview and select the evaluator.” Well, the records I got back do not confirm this claim. They indicate that three sort of consultants appear to have participated, once, in 2008, in the selection of the evaluation company. But there is no documentation indicating that they ranked or selected the evaluator. In fact, Jeff Baker’s own job description clearly states that this is his responsibility.
By far Ms. Youngdahl’s most outrageous, and spurious claim, is that “The Oakland Police Department credits the violence prevention programs funded by Measure Y for the significant crime reduction this year….” I asked for all documents supporting this claim, and who in OPD is actually doling out the credit in this manner. Guess what they gave me as proof? A couple of newspaper clippings quoting police officers who said that the programs have some benefit. Give me a break! (Notably, some of the clippings also cited new police tactics, and increased staffing, but not surprisingly, Ms. Youngdahl doesn’t cite any of that. Not her department.)
Ms. Youngdahl goes on to claim, in her newspaper submission, that the “City Auditor’s thorough audit of all Measure Y violence prevention programs did not find one single instance of fraud or misuse of funds.” On the contrary, Ms. Ruby’s report specifically faulted Measure Y violence prevention programs for failing to utilize RFP and/or competitive bidding processes to select “grantees” (which aren’t even permitted under the municipal code) and for providing services to non-Oakland residents, among other failings.
Mr. Sirbu pointed out in his piece that Mr. Baker, who is funded entirely out of Measure Y and should devote 100% of his time to Measure Y duties, has actually been pulled off his duties to attend to other things, such as staffing the Community Policing Advisory Board meetings. Ms. Youngdahl defends this practice by claiming that these are “violence-prevention activities,” so who cares if they aren’t exclusively related to Measure Y? It is exactly this sort of cavalier attitude that got the City sued the first time. I’m sorry to see their attitude hasn’t changed.
Most embarrassing of all is Ms. Youngdahl’s defense of Nancy Nadel’s appointment of a 16-year-old high school student to the Measure Y Oversight Committee. She gushes that his appointment is to be “applauded and encouraged, not minimized.” Is she willing to have her 16-year-old son (or daughter, niece, nephew, babysitter, whatever) do her financial planning, balance her checkbook, and figure out her tax return? I doubt it. And her budget isn’t likely to be a fraction as large or complicated as Measure Y. If a kid can’t vote, drink, drive, or get prescription medication, they sure as hell shouldn’t be in charge of a $20 million budget. Not as long as I have anything to say about it.
I subsequently sent out two public records requests to find out how and why her submission was composed. Two months and much nagging later (!!) I finally got the documents I sought, and confirmed that Ms. Youngdahl's efforts were with City approval and at City direction. Needless to say, also on City time and at City expense. The headline was “City of Oakland Takes Measure Y Oversight Very Seriously.” Well, if the current state of affairs is evidence of them taking oversight “seriously,” I shudder to think what not taking it seriously might look like.
Mr. Sirbu pointed out that there is a conflict of interest in the selection of the supposedly neutral performance evaluator. Ms. Youngdahl, in her piece, claimed that the City Administrator’s office “uses a panel of outside experts, not city staff, to interview and select the evaluator.” Well, the records I got back do not confirm this claim. They indicate that three sort of consultants appear to have participated, once, in 2008, in the selection of the evaluation company. But there is no documentation indicating that they ranked or selected the evaluator. In fact, Jeff Baker’s own job description clearly states that this is his responsibility.
By far Ms. Youngdahl’s most outrageous, and spurious claim, is that “The Oakland Police Department credits the violence prevention programs funded by Measure Y for the significant crime reduction this year….” I asked for all documents supporting this claim, and who in OPD is actually doling out the credit in this manner. Guess what they gave me as proof? A couple of newspaper clippings quoting police officers who said that the programs have some benefit. Give me a break! (Notably, some of the clippings also cited new police tactics, and increased staffing, but not surprisingly, Ms. Youngdahl doesn’t cite any of that. Not her department.)
Ms. Youngdahl goes on to claim, in her newspaper submission, that the “City Auditor’s thorough audit of all Measure Y violence prevention programs did not find one single instance of fraud or misuse of funds.” On the contrary, Ms. Ruby’s report specifically faulted Measure Y violence prevention programs for failing to utilize RFP and/or competitive bidding processes to select “grantees” (which aren’t even permitted under the municipal code) and for providing services to non-Oakland residents, among other failings.
Mr. Sirbu pointed out in his piece that Mr. Baker, who is funded entirely out of Measure Y and should devote 100% of his time to Measure Y duties, has actually been pulled off his duties to attend to other things, such as staffing the Community Policing Advisory Board meetings. Ms. Youngdahl defends this practice by claiming that these are “violence-prevention activities,” so who cares if they aren’t exclusively related to Measure Y? It is exactly this sort of cavalier attitude that got the City sued the first time. I’m sorry to see their attitude hasn’t changed.
Most embarrassing of all is Ms. Youngdahl’s defense of Nancy Nadel’s appointment of a 16-year-old high school student to the Measure Y Oversight Committee. She gushes that his appointment is to be “applauded and encouraged, not minimized.” Is she willing to have her 16-year-old son (or daughter, niece, nephew, babysitter, whatever) do her financial planning, balance her checkbook, and figure out her tax return? I doubt it. And her budget isn’t likely to be a fraction as large or complicated as Measure Y. If a kid can’t vote, drink, drive, or get prescription medication, they sure as hell shouldn’t be in charge of a $20 million budget. Not as long as I have anything to say about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
