City Council Lays Off 80 Cops - Bye Bye Measure Y

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?

Who The *@$& Are You To Tell Me To Pay More Taxes?

If our potty-mouthed mayor stuck his foot any further down his throat it would come out the other end. This is the guy who not that long ago said “get over it” and “much ado about nothing, man” in response to an audit condemning the misspending of federal stimulus money.

So it should come as no shock that when recently confronted about his MIA status, he told KTVU editor Randy Shandobil, “Who the $#*@ are you to decide my role?” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=66269

Mr. Dellums, a thousand dollar suit cannot conceal your utter lack of class and dignity.

Shortly thereafter, at a press conference, he reloaded and aimed squarely again at his foot, claiming, “Why do I care what Jerry Brown thinks?” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/author?blogid=14&auth=42

As the piece de resistance, he suggested that Oaklanders should “step up to the plate” and pay more in taxes. This, coming from a man who, as far as I know, still hasn’t paid a $250,000 outstanding tax lien. This, coming from a man who promised to take a pay cut, and then never did, because, like the rest of us, he’d rather just keep the money for himself.

Equally to blame, in my opinion, are the City Council members, who stand mutely by while this idiot collects his $187,000 salary, fails to show up to work, and then affronts the citizens with his Marie Antoinette attitude. Watch the video of the Shandobil interview with Jane Brunner - she looks like a deer caught in the headlights when asked about Dellums’ involvement (or lack thereof) in the budget process. Why can’t she just calls ‘em as she sees ‘em? Doesn’t she recognize that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing?

Brunner finally was forced to admit that Dellums was not involved at all in resolving the budget crisis. She deals with the City Administrator on these issues. Dellums is not part of the equation. Again, this didn’t surprise me, because in the more than two years of litigation with the City, and my numerous and regular communications with the City on everything Measure Y, he has had nothing to do with it. Nothing. Nada. Bupkiss. His name has never even come up. He is a non-entity as far as I can tell. Everybody seems to assume that he is an empty suit.

What has always surprised me is how the press have generally given him a pass throughout his administration. Do they feel sorry for him, because they suspect dementia? Are they afraid of his wrath? Since when were the media so hyper-sensitive? Seriously, these most recent quotes are awesome from a press perspective. They get people talking. They sell papers. More importantly, they expose a situation that the public should not tolerate. Keep it up.

Public Safety Advocates Agree - The Pending City Hall Proposals are An Outrage!

I couldn't have said it better myself. So below I am reprinting Charles Pine's latest entry from his website. (www.orpn.org)

Javier's House and the Folly of Police Layoffs

By Greg Hartwig

(Note: Greg Hartwig has put in many years of volunteer service to his neighborhood and the 18Y community policing beat. This is his report on the real Oakland and what public safety is all about.)

I always figured that the time between a call for service and the response provides some guide to the adequacy of police resources. As I arrived home last night, one of my neighbors informed me that the house of our neighbor Javier was broken into. Some animals used a crow bar to pop his security door. Then they completely destroyed his front door along with the locks and latch.

Javier and his wife are in El Salvador because of the death of a member of the immediate family.

I called it in. It was around four hours before there was a response. Actually, we are not sure what happened because we couldn't stay up any longer. The reason for the delay was standard: too many other calls demanding higher priority.

Any chance of finding the perpetrators in the area was lost. While the crime had already been committed, there was still urgency as the mangled front door needed to be secured. I closed it with a piece of duct tape which was still there this morning. The door remains improperly secured. I am not sure what to do.

Fewer Police? You Must Be Kidding

Now imagine a scenario where we have fewer officers. Imagine it is 200 or any reduction. The public safety results should be obvious.

However, I wonder whether our City leadership has considered the long-term economic consequences of a reduction in officers:

•How would you like to have a property rental business in that kind of environment? Any business?

•Do you think that any company concerned about the welfare of its employees would locate in a city that lacks resources to provide the most basic service necessary for public safety?

Oakland already has a bad reputation that has been dragging our economy down. If a layoff happens, this will worsen considerably. I am concerned it could easily take another decade or more for the city to recover. Bad reputations are hard to change.

In the meantime, both people and companies that would increase the tax base will avoid Oakland, while others leave. We will languish in poverty, crime and street mayhem. Our parks and architecturally lovely homes will decay into ruin.

A headline in the San Francisco Chronicle today reads, "Tech firms flocking to S.F." In spite of Oakland's lower cost, more convenient airport access, excellent location and other advantages, nothing that would add to our tax base "flocks" here. Right now, I would settle for businesses just "coming" to Oakland.

We need to make sure we are looking at Police as an essential investment in our economic infrastructure. The first step in economic development is ensuring order and reasonable norms of behavior.

P.S. half a day later: Javier's wife called me from El Salvador. I told her what happened. She is crying her eyes out. I am about to screw their front door shut. These people don't have any money.

City Hall Is Not Kidding

Greg Hartwig's report is one example of what lies behind these statistics:

•According to the FBI, Oakland has the highest violent crime rate in California.

•The police response time in Oakland to priority calls is already three times longer than the average time in California.

So what do city councilmembers suggest doing? Councilmember Quan and three others issued a proposal on June 21, 2010 suggesting no police training academies for the next two years. That is a proposal to reduce the police force through attrition by 100 officers, taking into account the normal loss to resignations and retirements. This cut by refusing to train replacements is in addition to threatened layoffs.

Councilmember Quan proposes rewriting the rules of Measure Y "that would give the City an emergency suspension of the 739 budget requirement." (Weekly newsletter, June 19, 2010) She wants to reduce the police count while continuing to collect the Measure Y taxes.

The first job of any municipal government is public safety. City government is not the school district and not the county. Only City Hall provides the main police force. These councilmembers might as well just propose to declare Oakland dissolved, a no-civilization zone.

Oakland today has half a police force compared with most major cities. Oakland needs at least 1,100 officers, not the 775 we have today. When city councilmembers even suggest layoffs of police, they are advertising to all residents and all business, to all prospective residents and businesses, "This city does not care who violates your home or shop. This city does not care whether someone mugs you on the street."

You can call (510) 238-3266 to register your outrage at the idea of withdrawing even more safety resources from Oakland.

Total Eclipse of Oakland's Sunshine Ordinance

The Public Ethics Commission has already found Oakland’s lack of compliance with public records disclosure requirements so troubling that it scheduled a hearing and ordered the City to mediation. I’ve already sued the City for documented non-compliance with over a dozen public records requests. And yet, City officials still can’t manage to comply with the legal requirements to save their lives.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, on May 21, 2010, I submitted a Public Records Act request for all documents related to how the City came up with the number of 200 officers for the proposed layoff. You know, this is kind of an important issue. It’s about as dramatic and newsworthy as an issue could possibly get. Here we have a totally understaffed police department already (as documented in today’s Trib) and the City is threatening to lay off 200 cops. The idea and the number appear to have come out of nowhere. And yet, nearly a month later, the City won’t produce a single, solitary document to back up this number. Not one. Worse yet, they won’t even respond to me at all. I have been sending them email after email asking them, when are you finally going to respond? When am I going to get my documents? No response. Nothing. My voice mail to Russo was also ignored. Just how bad does the City want to make itself look when this case finally goes to trial? The mind boggles.

Here I am, this aggressive, litigious, nagging pain in the ass, and they just ignore me. Regular folks wouldn’t even stand a chance. I know I’ve written about this topic many times before, but the problem seems to be getting worse, not better. In the past, I’d least get some sort of acknowledgement. Now, radio silence. Oh, and the City has made ZERO efforts to mediate the issue pending before the PEC. ZERO! So I'm actually going to look forward to the hearing and once and for all expose the fraud, ineptitude and hypocrisy. Should be loads of fun.

Oakland Columnist Byron Williams Gets It!

Today, Oakland Tribune Columnist Byron Williams wrote about Measure Y and how the whole debacle has compromised trust in government. Check it out here.

http://www.mercurynews.com/columns/ci_15261113

The Murder of Measure Y?

For the last couple of weeks, the press was all abuzz about some new proposal to lay off up to 200 police officers. Strange thing about this proposal, however, is that it did not seem to have arisen out of any particular City Council meeting. Nor could I find any reports on line, as attachments to regular agenda items associated with council and subcommittee meetings. There was no formal proposal in front of the Council to lay off officers to close the budget gap, nor had this even been discussed at any length prior to me hearing it on the news.

But the release of the information seemed unbelievably well orchestrated, with lots of news cameras and public appearances and doomsday talk. Phone calls were apparently made to numerous recipients of Measure Y funding, encouraging them to come on over to the next Public Safety Committee meeting to beg City officials to keep the programs alive. Never mind that the proposal to eliminate Measure Y funding was not on the agenda. Nor has it been on any published agenda since then.

My requests for public records have met with the usual response. Nothing, until I nagged them, and then more delay. So far, they can’t find a single document to show me having to do with this new proposal to lay off 200 cops. Can you believe it?

At least City officials seem to recognize that if they go forward and adopt a budget that includes any police layoffs, that means bye bye Measure Y. See, there’s this language in Measure Y that says the City has to “appropriate” funding “to maintain” 739 non-Measure Y police officers. The meaning of “appropriate” and “maintain” continues to mean less and less every day, but at least the City still acknowledges that layoffs mean that funding for 739 officers will not be “appropriated,” and therefore, they’ll need to give up Measure Y funding. A loss of $20 million to the City. But hey, that puts $90 per parcel back in homeowners’ pockets, and is a huge, huge disincentive for them to actually lay off officers. This is the accountability provision that was put into Measure Y for exactly this sort of situation.

So imagine my shock and horror when I found out Jean Quan wants to get rid of this provision. Yeah, you heard right. In her weekly newsletter, she made reference to some new proposal being brought back to the Council at the end of the month for a new and improved Measure Y, that is devoid of accountability. Now, interestingly, this proposal was never agendized on any City Council or subcommittee meeting. I know of no motion or resolution directing City staff to develop such a proposal. But if individual City Council members like Quan violate the Brown Act and try to throw their weight around City hall without having to jump through all those pesky legal hoops, well, that would pretty much be par for the course.

Will the proposal be to put a revised version of Measure Y on the November ballot, giving the City all the money, but with none of the accountability requirements? Will it include these sorts of revisions to Measure Y, plus the added insult of yet another $20 million parcel tax? Are these people totally bonkers? I thought they had reviewed the “polling results” (which the City claims it doesn’t have) and found out another parcel tax doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of passing? Why would they waste their time with such nonsense?

The release of the “proposal” was probably a negotiating tactic to get the police union to make significant concessions. Which they should. The idea that they don’t even contribute to their pensions is outrageous. San Francisco public employee unions just make a bunch of big concessions, meaning that SF isn’t going to lose any public safety employees. So Oakland should get concessions too, especially from OPOA. But the layoff threat could also be designed to scare us all into voting for another parcel tax. Sorry, but those tactics don’t work and me, and they shouldn’t work on you either. I encourage you all to write to your City Council members and speak at the upcoming budget meetings and just say NO to any new parcel taxes! And tell Quan to do us all a favor and drop out of the Mayor‘s race.