Or so it would appear, after solving the mystery of the missing salary surveys. After going into full Nancy Drew mode, I did a public records request for documents indicating that the 2008 salary survey for non-sworn personnel was “inaccurate,” and why it was removed from the internet. I got my answer. Sort of. First of all, it turns out that the City apparently has NO documents indicating that the salary survey is inaccurate. But after I posted it here to support the idea that public employee salaries are to blame for Oakland’s budget woes, Vice President of Local 21 Jeff Levin shot off an email to City Administrator Dan Lindheim demanding that it be removed from the City’s website. He referred to the salary survey as “outdated” and “incorrect” and claimed that the survey “was supposed to have been removed at conclusion of negotiations." His email closes with: “Please have them take it down immediately." And just like my hero, Captain Picard, Mr. Lindheim “made it so." Within hours, he issued the order that it be removed, and poof, it was gone. Not surprisingly, the totally inaccurate and misleading “FAQ” page about Measure Y is still up.
The City is claiming it has no documents indicating that the salary survey is “inaccurate.” But I guess a union leader’s say-so is enough for the City. I was informed that other responsive documents that I had asked for were protected by the “attorney-client privilege.” Can’t imagine too many attorneys getting involved in the discussion about how much employees in neighboring cities get paid, but whatever. The admission that there are no documents showing that the salary survey is inaccurate, and was taken down at the command of a union leader pretty much says it all.
So out of curiosity, I went to Local 21’s website to see what kind of a deal they have with the City. I look at union contracts all the time as part of my job, so I know a sweet deal when I see one, and these folks have some pretty sweet deals. Like 100% premium coverage on a Kaiser family plan. But not too many of you guys have your employer paying for 100% health coverage for you and your eight kids. But Local 21 members do. And they also get full dental coverage that covers orthodontia. Gotta tell you, I have NEVER seen that in a contract; I’m sure it costs a pretty penny. Then there’s the provision for a “COBRA supplement” fund. The City is supposed to put hundreds of thousands of dollars into this fund to pay for COBRA health coverage in the event of employee layoffs. Now, Obama’s plan, the “AARA,” already provides for substantial COBRA subsidies. Under this deal, laid off employees will pretty much get their entire health premiums covered! Unbelievable! Are you starting to understand why we’re broke? http://www.local21.org/chp_oak/tas/Oak_TA_2-of-3.pdf
Now, what did the City get in exchange for all this, you might ask? Well, I was happy to see there was an agreement reached on the “Citywide Code of Conduct,” under which City employees are supposed to deliver, “effective, courteous, and responsible service.” It provides that “proper behavior” includes “promptness” and “efficiency.” Wow. Like we had to negotiate with the union for something like that? Like those things aren’t a given for any employee working in the “real world?” Oh, and the chief labor negotiator for the City got paid $213,000 for one year of negotiating with the various unions. I seriously doubt that’s a full time job. And he gets paid as much as Russo? Well, I guess maybe if you have to negotiate over such basics as an employee being “courteous,” you might be sitting at the bargaining table for eons, but seriously folks!
As for the mystery of the other missing salary schedule - the one done in 2003 that cost $113,000 to study 200 positions? Well, the City has admitted they totally can’t find it! (It never dawned on them to ask the consultant for another copy. Sigh). And it never went to the City Council. They never saw it. Doesn’t seem too “efficient” to me. Is that a violation of the “Citywide Code of Conduct?” On the other hand, when the City informed of these embarrassing facts, they were very courteous about it. Not prompt, mind you, but courteous.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Measure Y Oversight Committee And Requirements To Disclose Conflicts of Interest
In November of last year I found out that members of the Measure Y Oversight Committee have never been required to file "Form 700s" - forms required by public officials to disclose possible conflicts of interest. Even though every other board and commission in Oakland was covered by Oakland's "Conflict of Interest" code, requiring the annual submission of Form 700s, the MYOC was not included. Moreover, I found out that several of the members of the MYOC were employed by agencies that received Measure Y funds. So I filed a complaint with the Public Ethics Commission. As noted in my previous post, the recommendation of the Executive Director is to dismiss my complaint.
No matter what happens at the March 1, 2010 meeting, I am happy to report that as a result of my complaint, MYOC members will now have to file Form 700s and disclose possible conflicts of interest, because the City approved an amendment to the Code in January. If you're interested, feel free to come to the PEC meeting, which is at 6:30 p.m. In the meantime, here's my brief in opposition to Mr. Purnell's recommendations.
I. Introduction and Summary of Argument
I, Complainant Marleen L. Sacks hereby object to Executive Director Dan Purnell’s recommendation to dismiss Complaint No. 09-16, relating to the Measure Y Oversight Committee’s failure to file conflict of interest disclosure statements, and actual conflicts of interest. In essence, Mr. Purnell recommends dismissal on the following grounds: (1) the MYOC was not listed on the City’s list of committees required to file Form 700s; (2) the MYOC did not need to be listed, because it was merely an “advisory” committee; (3) even though advisory committees may be required to file Form 700s, the MYOC did not, because Measure Y Administrator Jeff Baker advised Mr. Purnell that the City Council did not always accept MYOC recommendations; (4) although members on the MYOC worked for agencies that receive Measure Y funds, they were not required to file Form 700s at the time Ms. Sacks filed her complaint, and their income was from public agencies.
Mr. Purnell’s recommendations should be rejected and the matter should be referred for further investigation. Mr. Purnell’s investigation was inadequate, as he only interviewed one person regarding the duties and functions of the MYOC, to obtain information relevant to the analysis of whether it is “advisory.” The one person interviewed is inherently biased and unreliable, and it appears that the interview was insufficient to conduct a proper analysis of whether the City Council regularly adopts recommendations of the MYOC. Mr. Purnell also failed to consider at all the fact that virtually all other committees and commissions in Oakland that are subject to Form 700 filing requirements are also merely “advisory.” For some strange reason, the MYOC appears to have been the only committee in the City’s Conflict of Interest Code not subject to Form 700 filing requirements. Mr. Purnell never interviewed me or members of the MYOC to see if they had information that contradicted the information provided by Mr. Baker. Mr. Purnell’s recommendation also ignores the appearance of impropriety that exists when members of the committee, who are in charge of a $20 million fund, have the ability to influence decisions regarding which agencies receive that funding, and can steer that funding toward the agencies that employ them. While an exception may exist for public employees, I provided the name of at least one person who I believe works for a non-public agency, and it does not appear that this was investigated either.
II. Factual Background
I am a local resident who has been a licensed attorney since 1992. I specialize in representing public entities. In April, 2008, in my capacity as a private citizen, I filed a writ petition against the City of Oakland for numerous violations of Measure Y, a special tax that generates approximately $20 million a year for violence prevention and police. The only other witness interviewed by Mr. Purnell, Mark Morodomi, was the supervising attorney on the Measure Y lawsuit.
Last year, the Alameda County Superior Court granted my writ petition in large measure, finding that the City had illegally spent what I estimate to be $15 million of Measure Y funds, and that the City had failed to conduct mandatory audits. In my opinion, Mr. Baker, an assistant to the City Administrator in charge of Measure Y, was at least partly responsible for the illegalities that I uncovered. Over the past several years, I have been vocal in expressing my opinion that Mr. Baker is not competent and that many of the problems with administering Measure Y are his fault. I have also been vocal in expressing my opinion that the MYOC is similarly useless, and that had they been performing their functions properly, my lawsuit would not have been necessary.
The City has since filed an appeal of the court’s decision. I have attended MYOC meetings on several occasions and continue to monitor the City’s activities with respect to Measure Y. In the fall of 2009, it was brought to my attention that members of the MYOC have never been required to submit Form 700s and that several members had conflicts of interest, because they worked for agencies receiving MY funding. I therefore submitted a complaint regarding the matter on or about November 18, 2009. Mr. Morodomi advised that the MYOC was not included in the Conflict of Interest Code because it was “advisory.” I then reviewed the list of board of committees and commissions covered by the City’s Conflict of Interest Code. Notably, virtually all of the other commissions and committees covered by the COI Code were similarly “advisory” in nature. Therefore, there seemed no good or adequate reason to exclude the MYOC from inclusion, particularly given the large fund that it oversees.
III. Legal Argument
A. Advisory Committee Members May Be Required To Submit Form 700s
The Political Reform Act , Government Code Section 81000 et seq. (and Title 2 CCR Sections 18110 et seq.) contains conflict of interest provisions to ensure that public officials will “perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interests or the financial interests of persons who have supported them.“ (Section 81001(b)). Section 87100 prohibits any public official from making, participating in making, or otherwise using his or her official position to influence governmental decisions in which the official has a financial interest, unless an exception applies.
As conceded in Mr. Purnell’s recommendation, FPPC Regulation 18701(a)(1)(A) requires an assessment of the extent to which an advisory body’s recommendations have been followed in the past. If the recommendations a body have a significant impact on the ultimate outcome of a decision, then the body is considered to have decisionmaking authority and ceases to be solely advisory. (In re Rotman (1987) 10 FPPC Ops. 1). There are numerous subsequent FPPC “Advice Letters” that address this issue, and the conclusion of many FPPC investigations is that advisory committees are required to comply with Form 700 filing requirements.
Mr. Purnell’s opinion notes that “newly formed” bodies that “have no history of its recommendations being regularly approved over an extended time” are not considered to have decisionmaking authority. “Once there is a history of a particular advisory body’s recommendations being routinely accepted without amendment or modification, the body converts from a solely advisory function to one of making or participating in the making of a governmental decision and its members are considered public officials subject to the conflict of interest provisions under the Act.” (FPPC Advice Letter No. A-06-118). Numerous other FPPC Advice Letters confirm this position. See e.g. Baird Advice Letter No. A-94-299; Czach Advice Letter No. A-91-503; Woodbury Advice Letter A-90-665; Paley Advice Letter A-90-583; Korade Advice Letter A-89-715; Ball Advice Letter I-89-671.
Other factors that the FPPC considers relevant in determining whether an “advisory” body is nevertheless covered under the Act include whether the officials (1) vote on a matter; (2) appoint a person; (3) obligates or commits the agency to a course of action; (4) enters into any contractual agreement. (Regulation 18702.1(a)). And where an advisory committee has some decisionmaking authority regarding disbursement of funds, it can be considered subject to the Act. (FPPC Advice Letter I-08-067).
Prior to my complaint being filed, virtually all commissions and committees in Oakland, including ones that were solely “advisory,” were covered by Oakland’s Conflict of Interest Code. Only the MYOC was not included. It appeared to be a deliberate, but erroneous, omission, or an oversight.
B. Mr. Purnell’s Investigation Was Inadequate Because It Failed To Probe The Criteria Relevant To Determining Whether The MYOC Is Truly “Advisory"
There is no question that the MYOC is not a “new committee” with no history of making recommendations. In fact, MY has been in effect since January, 2005, and the MYOC was established shortly thereafter. Therefore, the MYOC has been in operation for nearly five years. Mr. Purnell should have conducted a thorough investigation into the factors specified above.
Mr. Purnell’s investigation appears to have limited to asking Mr. Baker and Mr. Morodomi two or three questions. Mr. Baker admitted that the MYOC makes recommendations, and recently recommended adoption of the “outside evaluator’s” report. Notably, Mr. Purnell apparently failed to ask if this recommendation was accepted by the City Council. He took at face value Mr. Baker’s assertion that prior to that, it made recommendations “very rarely.“ First, Mr. Baker has been in his current position for only approximately two years. Prior to that, his position was occupied by Anne Campbell-Washington. There is no indication that Mr. Purnell ever made any effort to interview Ms. Campbell-Washington or prior members of the MYOC to determine what type of recommendations the MYOC made from 2005-2008.
Mr. Baker claimed that the City Council and its committees have “not always followed” MYOC recommendations. The only time that I can recall this occurring is that the MYOC recommended rejecting Mayor Dellums $7.7 million “Augmented Recruitment Program,“ which was the catalyst for my lawsuit. The City Council did reject this recommendation. There is no indication Mr. Purnell asked Mr. Baker for any specific examples of situations where the MYOC’s recommendations were rejected.
Notably, Mr. Purnell never interviewed me regarding my knowledge of the activities of the MYOC, and when they make recommendations, and whether they are ever rejected by the City Council. His failure to even speak to me regarding this matter indicates bias and/or lack of a thorough investigation.
I believe that Mr. Baker’s information may be untrue or biased. As the administrator in charge of Measure Y and responsible for overseeing the functioning the MYOC, it should have been Mr. Baker’s responsibility to ensure that they committee members were complying with conflict of interest requirements, if those requirements applied. Needless to say, Mr. Baker has a vested interest in claiming that they don’t apply, since it would have been at least partially his fault for never looking into this to begin with. Moreover, Mr. Baker’s past history of failing to properly administer Measure Y is not mentioned. Mr. Baker oversaw Measure Y during the period of time that I was actively litigating against the City. I took Mr. Baker’s deposition and found him to be defensive, dishonest and not competent. He claimed that audits of Measure Y had been performed. He was never able to produce a single audit, and the Superior Court expressly found that no audits were ever conducted. Any statements he may have made regarding what type of the decisions members of the MYOC make should not have been taken at face value.
Mr. Purnell also interviewed Mr. Morodomi, the attorney who supervised the Measure Y litigation that the City lost. He too has a vested interest in trying to convince the PEC that the MYOC should never have been required to comply with the Form 700 filing requirements. Notably, since the filing of my complaint, Mr. Morodomi has recommended that the MYOC be included in the list of committees required to file Form, 700s. When asked why, he said it was because of its “ongoing debate and discussion of Measure Y issues.” This explanation is incoherent and incomprehensible. The likely reason he recommended inclusion was because I told him it appeared to be the only committee in the entire City that was not required to comply with the requirements, and that this made no sense at all.
There is no indication the Mr. Purnell conducted any real investigation into whether the MYOC has decision making authority and the extent to which its recommendations are accepted by the City Council. Relevant questions would include: (1) what does the MYOC actually do at its meetings? (2) does it ever make recommendations? (3) if, so, on what types of things; (4) how often? (5) has the City ever rejected a recommendation by the MYOC? (6) when? About what? Why? (7) does the MYOC receive information regarding agencies requesting MY funding? (8) does the MYOC make recommendations on which agencies receive MY funding? How much funding they receive? (9) if the MYOC does not make recommendations on these issues, who does? (10) Does the City Council ever reject or revise these recommendations? (11) Does the MYOC ever make any recommendations with respect to police functions? (12) Does the MYOC ever make any recommendations regarding audits or other items specified within its jurisdiction in the MY legislation? (13) Has the City Council ever rejected or revised those recommendations?
Because Mr. Purnell failed to conduct an adequate investigation into the factors deemed relevant by the FPPC, his recommendation of dismissal should be rejected, and the matter should be referred back for further investigation.
C. The Opinion Fails To Analyze Potential Conflicts of Interest Under Government Code Section 1090
In my complaint, I raised the issue that I suspected several members of the MYOC were employed by organizations that receive MY funding, creating a potential conflict of interest. California has two sets of conflict of interest provisions: the Political Reform Act, and Government Code Section 1090. Section 1090 creates the following, very broad prohibition:
Members of the Legislature, state, county, district, judicial district and city officers or employees shall not be financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members. (Emphasis added.)
Section 1090’s prohibitions apply to a much broader range of activities than merely the vote to enter into a contract or agreement. All actions involved in the making of a contract such as “negotiations, discussions, reasoning, planning, and the give and take which goes beforehand in the making of the decision to commit oneself must all be deemed to be a part of the making of an agreement in the broad sense.” (Stigall v. City of Taft (1962) 58 Cal.2d 565, 570-571 [25 Cal.Rptr. 441].) If there is a conflict under 1090, mere abstention is not sufficient; rather, the member/official is precluded from actually serving on the board/commission.
It is true that California law does not extend the proscription against making a contract by a board with a financially interested member to the situation of an advisory committee with a financially interested member. However, the law does require that the member abstain and not participate in the giving of advice. (Cal. Atty. Gen., Indexed Letter No. IL 72-143 (Aug. 16, 1992); see Conflicts of Interest (Cal. Dept. of Justice, pamp. 1998), p. 48; Cal. Ops. Atty. Gen. 99-304 (1999).
The opinion fails to analyze potential conflicts of interest under 1090. Therefore, I request that the matter be referred back to the Executive Director for further analysis on this issue.
D. The Conclusion That Members Of the MYOC Do Not Have a Conflict of Interest Because They Were Not Covered By The Conflict of Interest Code Is Premature Because No Thorough Investigation Has Been Conducted
When I first filed my complaint, I advised Mr. Purnell that I had information that two members of the MYOC worked for public agencies that received MY funding, and another worked for “Attitudinal Healing,” which I also believed had received MY funding. While his opinion addresses the public employees, it does not address the other person. Moreover, I advised Mr. Purnell that since members of the MYOC had never submitted Form 700s, I was not in a good position to determine whether other members may have conflicts, because I did not know where they all worked. I believe that the matter should be referred back to Mr. Purnell to determine the employment of the other members of the MYOC to determine if a conflict of interest exists or existed.
The argument that the MYOC was not covered by the Conflict of Interest Code at the time my complaint was submitted is circular and without merit. Without having conducted an adequate investigation into whether the MYOC should have been covered, Mr. Purnell cannot conclude that its exclusion is an excuse for members having a possible conflict. Only after conducting a thorough investigation on whether the MYOC was truly only “advisory” can such a conclusion be drawn.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, I request that the recommendation by Mr. Purnell be rejected, and that the matter be referred back to him for further investigation.
No matter what happens at the March 1, 2010 meeting, I am happy to report that as a result of my complaint, MYOC members will now have to file Form 700s and disclose possible conflicts of interest, because the City approved an amendment to the Code in January. If you're interested, feel free to come to the PEC meeting, which is at 6:30 p.m. In the meantime, here's my brief in opposition to Mr. Purnell's recommendations.
I. Introduction and Summary of Argument
I, Complainant Marleen L. Sacks hereby object to Executive Director Dan Purnell’s recommendation to dismiss Complaint No. 09-16, relating to the Measure Y Oversight Committee’s failure to file conflict of interest disclosure statements, and actual conflicts of interest. In essence, Mr. Purnell recommends dismissal on the following grounds: (1) the MYOC was not listed on the City’s list of committees required to file Form 700s; (2) the MYOC did not need to be listed, because it was merely an “advisory” committee; (3) even though advisory committees may be required to file Form 700s, the MYOC did not, because Measure Y Administrator Jeff Baker advised Mr. Purnell that the City Council did not always accept MYOC recommendations; (4) although members on the MYOC worked for agencies that receive Measure Y funds, they were not required to file Form 700s at the time Ms. Sacks filed her complaint, and their income was from public agencies.
Mr. Purnell’s recommendations should be rejected and the matter should be referred for further investigation. Mr. Purnell’s investigation was inadequate, as he only interviewed one person regarding the duties and functions of the MYOC, to obtain information relevant to the analysis of whether it is “advisory.” The one person interviewed is inherently biased and unreliable, and it appears that the interview was insufficient to conduct a proper analysis of whether the City Council regularly adopts recommendations of the MYOC. Mr. Purnell also failed to consider at all the fact that virtually all other committees and commissions in Oakland that are subject to Form 700 filing requirements are also merely “advisory.” For some strange reason, the MYOC appears to have been the only committee in the City’s Conflict of Interest Code not subject to Form 700 filing requirements. Mr. Purnell never interviewed me or members of the MYOC to see if they had information that contradicted the information provided by Mr. Baker. Mr. Purnell’s recommendation also ignores the appearance of impropriety that exists when members of the committee, who are in charge of a $20 million fund, have the ability to influence decisions regarding which agencies receive that funding, and can steer that funding toward the agencies that employ them. While an exception may exist for public employees, I provided the name of at least one person who I believe works for a non-public agency, and it does not appear that this was investigated either.
II. Factual Background
I am a local resident who has been a licensed attorney since 1992. I specialize in representing public entities. In April, 2008, in my capacity as a private citizen, I filed a writ petition against the City of Oakland for numerous violations of Measure Y, a special tax that generates approximately $20 million a year for violence prevention and police. The only other witness interviewed by Mr. Purnell, Mark Morodomi, was the supervising attorney on the Measure Y lawsuit.
Last year, the Alameda County Superior Court granted my writ petition in large measure, finding that the City had illegally spent what I estimate to be $15 million of Measure Y funds, and that the City had failed to conduct mandatory audits. In my opinion, Mr. Baker, an assistant to the City Administrator in charge of Measure Y, was at least partly responsible for the illegalities that I uncovered. Over the past several years, I have been vocal in expressing my opinion that Mr. Baker is not competent and that many of the problems with administering Measure Y are his fault. I have also been vocal in expressing my opinion that the MYOC is similarly useless, and that had they been performing their functions properly, my lawsuit would not have been necessary.
The City has since filed an appeal of the court’s decision. I have attended MYOC meetings on several occasions and continue to monitor the City’s activities with respect to Measure Y. In the fall of 2009, it was brought to my attention that members of the MYOC have never been required to submit Form 700s and that several members had conflicts of interest, because they worked for agencies receiving MY funding. I therefore submitted a complaint regarding the matter on or about November 18, 2009. Mr. Morodomi advised that the MYOC was not included in the Conflict of Interest Code because it was “advisory.” I then reviewed the list of board of committees and commissions covered by the City’s Conflict of Interest Code. Notably, virtually all of the other commissions and committees covered by the COI Code were similarly “advisory” in nature. Therefore, there seemed no good or adequate reason to exclude the MYOC from inclusion, particularly given the large fund that it oversees.
III. Legal Argument
A. Advisory Committee Members May Be Required To Submit Form 700s
The Political Reform Act , Government Code Section 81000 et seq. (and Title 2 CCR Sections 18110 et seq.) contains conflict of interest provisions to ensure that public officials will “perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interests or the financial interests of persons who have supported them.“ (Section 81001(b)). Section 87100 prohibits any public official from making, participating in making, or otherwise using his or her official position to influence governmental decisions in which the official has a financial interest, unless an exception applies.
As conceded in Mr. Purnell’s recommendation, FPPC Regulation 18701(a)(1)(A) requires an assessment of the extent to which an advisory body’s recommendations have been followed in the past. If the recommendations a body have a significant impact on the ultimate outcome of a decision, then the body is considered to have decisionmaking authority and ceases to be solely advisory. (In re Rotman (1987) 10 FPPC Ops. 1). There are numerous subsequent FPPC “Advice Letters” that address this issue, and the conclusion of many FPPC investigations is that advisory committees are required to comply with Form 700 filing requirements.
Mr. Purnell’s opinion notes that “newly formed” bodies that “have no history of its recommendations being regularly approved over an extended time” are not considered to have decisionmaking authority. “Once there is a history of a particular advisory body’s recommendations being routinely accepted without amendment or modification, the body converts from a solely advisory function to one of making or participating in the making of a governmental decision and its members are considered public officials subject to the conflict of interest provisions under the Act.” (FPPC Advice Letter No. A-06-118). Numerous other FPPC Advice Letters confirm this position. See e.g. Baird Advice Letter No. A-94-299; Czach Advice Letter No. A-91-503; Woodbury Advice Letter A-90-665; Paley Advice Letter A-90-583; Korade Advice Letter A-89-715; Ball Advice Letter I-89-671.
Other factors that the FPPC considers relevant in determining whether an “advisory” body is nevertheless covered under the Act include whether the officials (1) vote on a matter; (2) appoint a person; (3) obligates or commits the agency to a course of action; (4) enters into any contractual agreement. (Regulation 18702.1(a)). And where an advisory committee has some decisionmaking authority regarding disbursement of funds, it can be considered subject to the Act. (FPPC Advice Letter I-08-067).
Prior to my complaint being filed, virtually all commissions and committees in Oakland, including ones that were solely “advisory,” were covered by Oakland’s Conflict of Interest Code. Only the MYOC was not included. It appeared to be a deliberate, but erroneous, omission, or an oversight.
B. Mr. Purnell’s Investigation Was Inadequate Because It Failed To Probe The Criteria Relevant To Determining Whether The MYOC Is Truly “Advisory"
There is no question that the MYOC is not a “new committee” with no history of making recommendations. In fact, MY has been in effect since January, 2005, and the MYOC was established shortly thereafter. Therefore, the MYOC has been in operation for nearly five years. Mr. Purnell should have conducted a thorough investigation into the factors specified above.
Mr. Purnell’s investigation appears to have limited to asking Mr. Baker and Mr. Morodomi two or three questions. Mr. Baker admitted that the MYOC makes recommendations, and recently recommended adoption of the “outside evaluator’s” report. Notably, Mr. Purnell apparently failed to ask if this recommendation was accepted by the City Council. He took at face value Mr. Baker’s assertion that prior to that, it made recommendations “very rarely.“ First, Mr. Baker has been in his current position for only approximately two years. Prior to that, his position was occupied by Anne Campbell-Washington. There is no indication that Mr. Purnell ever made any effort to interview Ms. Campbell-Washington or prior members of the MYOC to determine what type of recommendations the MYOC made from 2005-2008.
Mr. Baker claimed that the City Council and its committees have “not always followed” MYOC recommendations. The only time that I can recall this occurring is that the MYOC recommended rejecting Mayor Dellums $7.7 million “Augmented Recruitment Program,“ which was the catalyst for my lawsuit. The City Council did reject this recommendation. There is no indication Mr. Purnell asked Mr. Baker for any specific examples of situations where the MYOC’s recommendations were rejected.
Notably, Mr. Purnell never interviewed me regarding my knowledge of the activities of the MYOC, and when they make recommendations, and whether they are ever rejected by the City Council. His failure to even speak to me regarding this matter indicates bias and/or lack of a thorough investigation.
I believe that Mr. Baker’s information may be untrue or biased. As the administrator in charge of Measure Y and responsible for overseeing the functioning the MYOC, it should have been Mr. Baker’s responsibility to ensure that they committee members were complying with conflict of interest requirements, if those requirements applied. Needless to say, Mr. Baker has a vested interest in claiming that they don’t apply, since it would have been at least partially his fault for never looking into this to begin with. Moreover, Mr. Baker’s past history of failing to properly administer Measure Y is not mentioned. Mr. Baker oversaw Measure Y during the period of time that I was actively litigating against the City. I took Mr. Baker’s deposition and found him to be defensive, dishonest and not competent. He claimed that audits of Measure Y had been performed. He was never able to produce a single audit, and the Superior Court expressly found that no audits were ever conducted. Any statements he may have made regarding what type of the decisions members of the MYOC make should not have been taken at face value.
Mr. Purnell also interviewed Mr. Morodomi, the attorney who supervised the Measure Y litigation that the City lost. He too has a vested interest in trying to convince the PEC that the MYOC should never have been required to comply with the Form 700 filing requirements. Notably, since the filing of my complaint, Mr. Morodomi has recommended that the MYOC be included in the list of committees required to file Form, 700s. When asked why, he said it was because of its “ongoing debate and discussion of Measure Y issues.” This explanation is incoherent and incomprehensible. The likely reason he recommended inclusion was because I told him it appeared to be the only committee in the entire City that was not required to comply with the requirements, and that this made no sense at all.
There is no indication the Mr. Purnell conducted any real investigation into whether the MYOC has decision making authority and the extent to which its recommendations are accepted by the City Council. Relevant questions would include: (1) what does the MYOC actually do at its meetings? (2) does it ever make recommendations? (3) if, so, on what types of things; (4) how often? (5) has the City ever rejected a recommendation by the MYOC? (6) when? About what? Why? (7) does the MYOC receive information regarding agencies requesting MY funding? (8) does the MYOC make recommendations on which agencies receive MY funding? How much funding they receive? (9) if the MYOC does not make recommendations on these issues, who does? (10) Does the City Council ever reject or revise these recommendations? (11) Does the MYOC ever make any recommendations with respect to police functions? (12) Does the MYOC ever make any recommendations regarding audits or other items specified within its jurisdiction in the MY legislation? (13) Has the City Council ever rejected or revised those recommendations?
Because Mr. Purnell failed to conduct an adequate investigation into the factors deemed relevant by the FPPC, his recommendation of dismissal should be rejected, and the matter should be referred back for further investigation.
C. The Opinion Fails To Analyze Potential Conflicts of Interest Under Government Code Section 1090
In my complaint, I raised the issue that I suspected several members of the MYOC were employed by organizations that receive MY funding, creating a potential conflict of interest. California has two sets of conflict of interest provisions: the Political Reform Act, and Government Code Section 1090. Section 1090 creates the following, very broad prohibition:
Members of the Legislature, state, county, district, judicial district and city officers or employees shall not be financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members. (Emphasis added.)
Section 1090’s prohibitions apply to a much broader range of activities than merely the vote to enter into a contract or agreement. All actions involved in the making of a contract such as “negotiations, discussions, reasoning, planning, and the give and take which goes beforehand in the making of the decision to commit oneself must all be deemed to be a part of the making of an agreement in the broad sense.” (Stigall v. City of Taft (1962) 58 Cal.2d 565, 570-571 [25 Cal.Rptr. 441].) If there is a conflict under 1090, mere abstention is not sufficient; rather, the member/official is precluded from actually serving on the board/commission.
It is true that California law does not extend the proscription against making a contract by a board with a financially interested member to the situation of an advisory committee with a financially interested member. However, the law does require that the member abstain and not participate in the giving of advice. (Cal. Atty. Gen., Indexed Letter No. IL 72-143 (Aug. 16, 1992); see Conflicts of Interest (Cal. Dept. of Justice, pamp. 1998), p. 48; Cal. Ops. Atty. Gen. 99-304 (1999).
The opinion fails to analyze potential conflicts of interest under 1090. Therefore, I request that the matter be referred back to the Executive Director for further analysis on this issue.
D. The Conclusion That Members Of the MYOC Do Not Have a Conflict of Interest Because They Were Not Covered By The Conflict of Interest Code Is Premature Because No Thorough Investigation Has Been Conducted
When I first filed my complaint, I advised Mr. Purnell that I had information that two members of the MYOC worked for public agencies that received MY funding, and another worked for “Attitudinal Healing,” which I also believed had received MY funding. While his opinion addresses the public employees, it does not address the other person. Moreover, I advised Mr. Purnell that since members of the MYOC had never submitted Form 700s, I was not in a good position to determine whether other members may have conflicts, because I did not know where they all worked. I believe that the matter should be referred back to Mr. Purnell to determine the employment of the other members of the MYOC to determine if a conflict of interest exists or existed.
The argument that the MYOC was not covered by the Conflict of Interest Code at the time my complaint was submitted is circular and without merit. Without having conducted an adequate investigation into whether the MYOC should have been covered, Mr. Purnell cannot conclude that its exclusion is an excuse for members having a possible conflict. Only after conducting a thorough investigation on whether the MYOC was truly only “advisory” can such a conclusion be drawn.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, I request that the recommendation by Mr. Purnell be rejected, and that the matter be referred back to him for further investigation.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Oakland's Public Ethics Commission Is a Kangaroo Court
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The Mysterious Case of The Missing Salary Surveys
Things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser. Suddenly, two Oakland salary surveys have gone missing! It's time for Miss Marple and Nancy Drew to put their heads together and solve this one!
Last week, I wrote a post about how inflated Oakland salaries are. http://defendingmeasurey.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-is-oakland-so-broke-heres-clue.html and cited to a 2008 “comparability Wage and Benefit” analysis. An anonymous poster at ABO wrote that the City Administrator’s office was contemplating removing it, because it was “inaccurate.” Lo and behold, within a week of my post, it was gone. Fortunately, you can still find it here. http://www.abetteroakland.com/documents/salarysurvey.pdf
Now, what kind of knucklehead City officials would commission a detailed salary survey of 70 positions that is “inaccurate?” And since when did “inaccuracy” bother City officials so much that they had to take something off the internet? My favorite “inaccurate” website is the “FAQs” page for Measure Y, sponsored by the City of Oakland, which you can find here. http://measurey.org/index.php?page=measure-y-faq
It states at the bottom of the page: “…two specific guarantees were put in the measure: 1) that the City will maintain a baseline of 739 police officers in addition to the 63 new officers….” Oh really? Guarantee, huh? Then why is the City still collecting the tax when we’re way below 802? And during the early stages of my lawsuit, the City claimed that this wasn’t what Measure Y said at all. So that means it’s “inaccurate.” So, Dan, when are you going to correct that “inaccuracy?”
The next missing salary survey is even more of an embarrassment for the City. As noted in my post last week, in 2002/03 the City signed a contract “not to exceed $100,000” to conduct a salary survey of top management positions. I tried to find a version of the survey on line, with no luck. So I did a public records request to the City to get a copy and to find out when it went to the City Council, as well as find out how much the salary survey actually cost us taxpayers. Get this - the City can’t “find” the survey. Oh, and then I find out that the survey cost $113,000! Can you frickin believe that? $113,000 to conduct a salary survey of only 200 positions? That is just shocking! And to add insult to injury, this exceeded the maximum amount by $13,000. Oh, and it gets better. There’s no indication that the salary survey was EVER presented to the Council. To date, the City has been unable to locate any documents indicating it was ever given to them. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because the people responsible for presenting it are the same overpaid upper management that the survey was supposed to study?
You want to know why Oakland is broke? They agree to pay $100,000 for something that should have cost a tenth of that. They don’t bother to notice that they overpay by $13,000, in violation of the contract. They pay $113,000 for a survey that either was never done, that was lost, and/or that was never even presented to the Council! This is just the height of ineptitude! And they want us to pay more taxes to cover these types of mistakes? Get real.
Last week, I wrote a post about how inflated Oakland salaries are. http://defendingmeasurey.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-is-oakland-so-broke-heres-clue.html and cited to a 2008 “comparability Wage and Benefit” analysis. An anonymous poster at ABO wrote that the City Administrator’s office was contemplating removing it, because it was “inaccurate.” Lo and behold, within a week of my post, it was gone. Fortunately, you can still find it here. http://www.abetteroakland.com/documents/salarysurvey.pdf
Now, what kind of knucklehead City officials would commission a detailed salary survey of 70 positions that is “inaccurate?” And since when did “inaccuracy” bother City officials so much that they had to take something off the internet? My favorite “inaccurate” website is the “FAQs” page for Measure Y, sponsored by the City of Oakland, which you can find here. http://measurey.org/index.php?page=measure-y-faq
It states at the bottom of the page: “…two specific guarantees were put in the measure: 1) that the City will maintain a baseline of 739 police officers in addition to the 63 new officers….” Oh really? Guarantee, huh? Then why is the City still collecting the tax when we’re way below 802? And during the early stages of my lawsuit, the City claimed that this wasn’t what Measure Y said at all. So that means it’s “inaccurate.” So, Dan, when are you going to correct that “inaccuracy?”
The next missing salary survey is even more of an embarrassment for the City. As noted in my post last week, in 2002/03 the City signed a contract “not to exceed $100,000” to conduct a salary survey of top management positions. I tried to find a version of the survey on line, with no luck. So I did a public records request to the City to get a copy and to find out when it went to the City Council, as well as find out how much the salary survey actually cost us taxpayers. Get this - the City can’t “find” the survey. Oh, and then I find out that the survey cost $113,000! Can you frickin believe that? $113,000 to conduct a salary survey of only 200 positions? That is just shocking! And to add insult to injury, this exceeded the maximum amount by $13,000. Oh, and it gets better. There’s no indication that the salary survey was EVER presented to the Council. To date, the City has been unable to locate any documents indicating it was ever given to them. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because the people responsible for presenting it are the same overpaid upper management that the survey was supposed to study?
You want to know why Oakland is broke? They agree to pay $100,000 for something that should have cost a tenth of that. They don’t bother to notice that they overpay by $13,000, in violation of the contract. They pay $113,000 for a survey that either was never done, that was lost, and/or that was never even presented to the Council! This is just the height of ineptitude! And they want us to pay more taxes to cover these types of mistakes? Get real.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Why Is Oakland So Broke? Here’s A Clue
Don’t you just love it when our City leaders preface their statements regarding the budget by saying, “like many cities these days….” Well, let me tell you ladies and gentlemen, Oakland isn’t like many cities. It is in a class by itself. How many other cities have recently used the word “bankruptcy” in the context of discussing options? How many other cities have a parcel tax to pay for the most basic service (police!) a city can provide? We stand alone. As the budget gurus will readily admit, around 75% of Oakland’s general fund is eaten up by public employee salaries. How many other cities have salaries as obscenely high as Oakland? Well, I decided to do some basic research to try to find out.
Fellow bloggers Vsmoothe at Abetteroakland.com and DTO510 have done a lot of the research for me. You can check out their posts at http://www.abetteroakland.com/oakland-employment-per-capita-1995-and-2005/2008-07-24
and
http://futureoakland.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/statistical-surprise-civil-servants-significantly-overpaid/
According to an article in the Oakland Tribune from June 14, 2003, at around that time, the Council froze the salaries of approximately 200 non-union employees (a tiny fraction of Oakland’s total work force) after raises given to then City Manager Robert Bobb and City Attorney John Russo made them the highest paid employees in their respective positions in the STATE.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20030614/ai_n14547518/
The article stated that other high paid administrators were “not far behind.” The City paid a consultant $100,000 to have a salary survey conducted to compare Oakland salaries with those of other cities and the private sector. I can’t find a copy of that survey, but I’ll do a public records request and see what that turns up. (The report hadn’t been released at the time the Tribune article was published). At the time, then Councilmember Danny Wan made the (outrageous) request that before voting to unfreeze salaries, he wanted to ensure that any raises were (gasp!) performance based (!) I couldn’t find any evidence that the Trib followed up on this story, but in any event, that’s just some background history.
What’s more current and more enlightening to look at is a document you can hopefully find here
http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/fwawebsite/personnel/PDF/SalarySurvey-CPIChart.pdf
This is a 2008 “comparability Wage and Benefit” analysis which, according to an anonymous poster on ABetterOakland.com, the City is now claiming is “inaccurate” and could be removed from the internet. We shall see. The survey compared Oakland salaries to 13 other large Bay Area cities and counties. While it did not include police officers, it did compare 70 different civil service positions, ranging from a lowly “Cook III” (paid 19.44% more than the mean of neighboring cities) to a “Deputy City Attorney II” (paid 9.43% more than the mean). Of the 70 positions analyzed, a full 63(90%!) showed Oakland workers were overpaid compared to their counterparts elsewhere. Some of the numbers are truly shocking. A “Construction Inspection Supervisor” gets paid 34.52% more than the mean; a “recycling supervisor” gets 28.56% more. The vast majority are compensated at between 10-20% more than neighboring cities. The document does not specify how the survey was conducted, or what data was analyzed. For example, it doesn’t specify whether health benefits or retirement benefits were considered. It doesn’t specify whether it considered the length of the workday or workweek, or other restrictions unions may have negotiated to keep their members from working any more than they actually have to (: )) My guess is that if those factors were considered, the discrepancies in Oakland’s overly generous compensation would become even more apparent.
Another great chart to check out can be found here:
www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2008/tables/08s0453.pdf
This chart analyzes City staffing and payroll and employment numbers for 1995 and 2005. Let’s compare Oakland’s numbers to our sister city, Long Beach (which is somewhat bigger, but still relevant for comparison purposes). From 1995 to 2005, Oakland’s “full time equivalent” personnel numbers jumped from 4700 to 5500. That’s a much more dramatic increase than Long Beach, that went from 5400 to 5600. On a per 10,000 resident basis, Oakland’s staffing was 138, compared to Long Beach’s conservative 119. Moreover, during that same time period, Long Beach cut its per capita staffing per 10,000 from 125 to 119; Oakland increased its from 128 to 138! From 1995 to 2005, Oakland’s total payroll costs skyrocketed, more than doubling! Long Beach only had a modest increase. And as for average monthly salaries, Oakland’s were among the highest on the list back in 1995, and by 2005, were the highest on the list, by a long shot at $7397. During that 10 year period, Oakland salaries had gone up an average of nearly 70%!
Another fun one is here:
www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0455.xls
According to Pauline, who already analyzed the data in her recent post on ABO, this chart shows average monthly earnings for the 85 largest cities in the U.S. for 2000, 2006 and 2007. In 2000 and 2006, Oakland's average monthly earnings were the highest of all 85 cities. In 2007 Oakland was the seventh highest. Pauline also notes that Oakland has 163 retired people with pensions over $100,000 ranging from $100,104 to $169,920. See
http://www.californiapensionreform.com
San Francisco has 40 people, San Jose has 0, Sacramento 87, and Los Angeles has 35.
Many will say that Oakland’s salary numbers are inflated by police and fire salaries, which may well be true. So to find out if Oakland police are overpaid, you can check out the chart at
http://www.dpa.ca.gov/salaries/surveys/2008/public-safety/appendix/statewide/patrol-officer.htm
This salary survey is very well put together because it compares apples to apples (just police officers, not administration) and includes all compensation, including salary ranges (minimum and maximum), health benefits, retirement, longevity pay etc. It does NOT take into consideration how much overtime they get. It is very easy to read, and makes it clear that again, Oakland is far and away the most generous in terms of both salary and total compensation. Total monthly compensation for Oakland is $9775. No other jurisdiction even comes CLOSE, except for the County of Alameda, which is at 9552. Again, comparing Oakland to Long Beach, we outspent Long Beach by a full $2221 per month, per officer. Are you starting not to wonder anymore why we’re BROKE?
More great survey data can be found at
http://www.dpa.ca.gov/tcs2006/exhibit-h.htm
This compares various public entities’ retiree health coverage. Of course, most employers don’t provide retiree health coverage. Mine sure doesn’t. And according to the chart, neither does Long Beach. But Oakland provides monthly premiums of $64.60, plus up to $425.42 a month in reimbursements, for a total cost of nearly $500 per month, per employee. They’re entitled to the same benefits for their spouse, making the cost closer to $1000 a month for married employees! Interestingly, however, it appears that many public sector employees and their families get similar benefits, so there’s probably not a lot of room to negotiate with the unions on this one.
Yet another chart worth checking out is at
www.dpa.ca.gov/tcs2006/exhibit-e.htm
Here you can compare Oakland’s cost of living increases with those of other public entities around the state. The chart shows that in 2006, Oakland public employees last received a 3% COLA in July, 2005, and were due to receive a 4% increase in July, 2006. None of the other public entities disclosed such generous COLA increases. By the way, unionized workers generally get paid based on a salary schedule that provides for automatic pay increases every year, regardless of the actual cost of living, and regardless of performance. So just because union workers don’t get COLA doesn’t mean they didn’t get a raise. They usually did.
Here’s a chart that compares public sector leave practices.
www.dpa.ca.gov/tcs2006/exhibit-j.htm
Oakland’s vacation leaves appear comparable to that of other cities, as does its sick leave, and time off for holidays, so I don’t see room for negotiation in this area…
If you want to check out individual salaries by name or title, Bay Area News Group does an annual survey. The 2009 version can be found here.
www.contracostatimes.com/public-employee-salaries?appSession=658221439527912&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=1&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=
You’ll see that police officers can clear well over $250,000 a year, including overtime. Hey, I wouldn’t necessary want to work overtime on the mean streets of Oakland, but these numbers are just obscene!
So, if any of you reading this want to question my conclusion that Oakland civil servants are overpaid, be my guest, but please supply the link that supports your position, and I’ll be happy to take a look at it. In the meantime, I’ll consider my opinion that Oakland is paying way too much in salaries and benefits as an informed one, and will continue to lobby our officials to commit to cracking down on these problems before coming to the taxpayers for more money. Are you willing to pay more taxes so that a cook can get 20% more than they could in Berkeley? I thought not.
Fellow bloggers Vsmoothe at Abetteroakland.com and DTO510 have done a lot of the research for me. You can check out their posts at http://www.abetteroakland.com/oakland-employment-per-capita-1995-and-2005/2008-07-24
and
http://futureoakland.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/statistical-surprise-civil-servants-significantly-overpaid/
According to an article in the Oakland Tribune from June 14, 2003, at around that time, the Council froze the salaries of approximately 200 non-union employees (a tiny fraction of Oakland’s total work force) after raises given to then City Manager Robert Bobb and City Attorney John Russo made them the highest paid employees in their respective positions in the STATE.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20030614/ai_n14547518/
The article stated that other high paid administrators were “not far behind.” The City paid a consultant $100,000 to have a salary survey conducted to compare Oakland salaries with those of other cities and the private sector. I can’t find a copy of that survey, but I’ll do a public records request and see what that turns up. (The report hadn’t been released at the time the Tribune article was published). At the time, then Councilmember Danny Wan made the (outrageous) request that before voting to unfreeze salaries, he wanted to ensure that any raises were (gasp!) performance based (!) I couldn’t find any evidence that the Trib followed up on this story, but in any event, that’s just some background history.
What’s more current and more enlightening to look at is a document you can hopefully find here
http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/fwawebsite/personnel/PDF/SalarySurvey-CPIChart.pdf
This is a 2008 “comparability Wage and Benefit” analysis which, according to an anonymous poster on ABetterOakland.com, the City is now claiming is “inaccurate” and could be removed from the internet. We shall see. The survey compared Oakland salaries to 13 other large Bay Area cities and counties. While it did not include police officers, it did compare 70 different civil service positions, ranging from a lowly “Cook III” (paid 19.44% more than the mean of neighboring cities) to a “Deputy City Attorney II” (paid 9.43% more than the mean). Of the 70 positions analyzed, a full 63(90%!) showed Oakland workers were overpaid compared to their counterparts elsewhere. Some of the numbers are truly shocking. A “Construction Inspection Supervisor” gets paid 34.52% more than the mean; a “recycling supervisor” gets 28.56% more. The vast majority are compensated at between 10-20% more than neighboring cities. The document does not specify how the survey was conducted, or what data was analyzed. For example, it doesn’t specify whether health benefits or retirement benefits were considered. It doesn’t specify whether it considered the length of the workday or workweek, or other restrictions unions may have negotiated to keep their members from working any more than they actually have to (: )) My guess is that if those factors were considered, the discrepancies in Oakland’s overly generous compensation would become even more apparent.
Another great chart to check out can be found here:
www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2008/tables/08s0453.pdf
This chart analyzes City staffing and payroll and employment numbers for 1995 and 2005. Let’s compare Oakland’s numbers to our sister city, Long Beach (which is somewhat bigger, but still relevant for comparison purposes). From 1995 to 2005, Oakland’s “full time equivalent” personnel numbers jumped from 4700 to 5500. That’s a much more dramatic increase than Long Beach, that went from 5400 to 5600. On a per 10,000 resident basis, Oakland’s staffing was 138, compared to Long Beach’s conservative 119. Moreover, during that same time period, Long Beach cut its per capita staffing per 10,000 from 125 to 119; Oakland increased its from 128 to 138! From 1995 to 2005, Oakland’s total payroll costs skyrocketed, more than doubling! Long Beach only had a modest increase. And as for average monthly salaries, Oakland’s were among the highest on the list back in 1995, and by 2005, were the highest on the list, by a long shot at $7397. During that 10 year period, Oakland salaries had gone up an average of nearly 70%!
Another fun one is here:
www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0455.xls
According to Pauline, who already analyzed the data in her recent post on ABO, this chart shows average monthly earnings for the 85 largest cities in the U.S. for 2000, 2006 and 2007. In 2000 and 2006, Oakland's average monthly earnings were the highest of all 85 cities. In 2007 Oakland was the seventh highest. Pauline also notes that Oakland has 163 retired people with pensions over $100,000 ranging from $100,104 to $169,920. See
http://www.californiapensionreform.com
San Francisco has 40 people, San Jose has 0, Sacramento 87, and Los Angeles has 35.
Many will say that Oakland’s salary numbers are inflated by police and fire salaries, which may well be true. So to find out if Oakland police are overpaid, you can check out the chart at
http://www.dpa.ca.gov/salaries/surveys/2008/public-safety/appendix/statewide/patrol-officer.htm
This salary survey is very well put together because it compares apples to apples (just police officers, not administration) and includes all compensation, including salary ranges (minimum and maximum), health benefits, retirement, longevity pay etc. It does NOT take into consideration how much overtime they get. It is very easy to read, and makes it clear that again, Oakland is far and away the most generous in terms of both salary and total compensation. Total monthly compensation for Oakland is $9775. No other jurisdiction even comes CLOSE, except for the County of Alameda, which is at 9552. Again, comparing Oakland to Long Beach, we outspent Long Beach by a full $2221 per month, per officer. Are you starting not to wonder anymore why we’re BROKE?
More great survey data can be found at
http://www.dpa.ca.gov/tcs2006/exhibit-h.htm
This compares various public entities’ retiree health coverage. Of course, most employers don’t provide retiree health coverage. Mine sure doesn’t. And according to the chart, neither does Long Beach. But Oakland provides monthly premiums of $64.60, plus up to $425.42 a month in reimbursements, for a total cost of nearly $500 per month, per employee. They’re entitled to the same benefits for their spouse, making the cost closer to $1000 a month for married employees! Interestingly, however, it appears that many public sector employees and their families get similar benefits, so there’s probably not a lot of room to negotiate with the unions on this one.
Yet another chart worth checking out is at
www.dpa.ca.gov/tcs2006/exhibit-e.htm
Here you can compare Oakland’s cost of living increases with those of other public entities around the state. The chart shows that in 2006, Oakland public employees last received a 3% COLA in July, 2005, and were due to receive a 4% increase in July, 2006. None of the other public entities disclosed such generous COLA increases. By the way, unionized workers generally get paid based on a salary schedule that provides for automatic pay increases every year, regardless of the actual cost of living, and regardless of performance. So just because union workers don’t get COLA doesn’t mean they didn’t get a raise. They usually did.
Here’s a chart that compares public sector leave practices.
www.dpa.ca.gov/tcs2006/exhibit-j.htm
Oakland’s vacation leaves appear comparable to that of other cities, as does its sick leave, and time off for holidays, so I don’t see room for negotiation in this area…
If you want to check out individual salaries by name or title, Bay Area News Group does an annual survey. The 2009 version can be found here.
www.contracostatimes.com/public-employee-salaries?appSession=658221439527912&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=1&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=
You’ll see that police officers can clear well over $250,000 a year, including overtime. Hey, I wouldn’t necessary want to work overtime on the mean streets of Oakland, but these numbers are just obscene!
So, if any of you reading this want to question my conclusion that Oakland civil servants are overpaid, be my guest, but please supply the link that supports your position, and I’ll be happy to take a look at it. In the meantime, I’ll consider my opinion that Oakland is paying way too much in salaries and benefits as an informed one, and will continue to lobby our officials to commit to cracking down on these problems before coming to the taxpayers for more money. Are you willing to pay more taxes so that a cook can get 20% more than they could in Berkeley? I thought not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
