At Monday night’s meeting, the council voted unanimously to place revisions to Measure Y on the November ballot. That was to be expected. But the council also approved the ridiculous $360 “dollar a day” new parcel tax for placement on the ballot as well, as part of some sort of proposed deal with the police union. I haven’t seen the revised ballot measure language (if, indeed, it is going to be revised) but apparently OPOA will agree to support the measure (and presumably pay for all the misleading, extortionist propaganda you are likely to see soon clogging your mailboxes) and in exchange will agree to “gradually” start contributing to their pensions.
The only ones who will benefit from the new parcel tax are the incompetent City officials who are trying to bail themselves out on taxpayers' backs, and the greedy police union and its members. I’m not sure if part of the proposed deal with OPOA will include rehiring the 80 laid off officers, or any other sort of no-layoff provision. But it hardly matters. The new parcel tax itself doesn’t have anything about any sort of staffing guarantees. And the City is still refusing to pay for or schedule any new academies. That means taxpayers are being asked to pony up around $54 million a year, with no promise of any additional staffing, and a guarantee that the police force will drop by around 50 officers per year simply by attrition. So in four years, you will have paid over $1400, and police staffing will be at 486. In fact, under the proposed language, staffing could drop to zero, and the City could continue collecting the tax. No doubt the language is written this way to avoid any more lawsuits, and because they know I go over all this stuff with a fine tooth comb. But the reality is, they get all the money, and we will probably get NOTHING.
Yes, maybe some cops might get hired back. But under the proposed language, this is not required. And as we now know, the City doesn’t even do what it is legally obligated to do. If those legal obligations don’t exist, they’ll do even less. Why, apparently just today, at a press conference (to which I was not invited) Dan Lindheim claimed that the City did everything it was required to do under Measure Y, and wouldn’t even acknowledge that it had lost a lawsuit that is likely to cost it $15 million. Does this sound like a government that you want to trust even more of your hard earned cash to? And do you really want to pay $54 million a year just so police officers can continue collecting their six figure salaries, retire at 50, and go off and buy an island in Fiji? I didn’t think so.
As for the “fix” on Measure Y, the City’s definition of “fix” is to eliminate any obligations that previously existed. Measure Y was sold to voters as a way of increasing police staffing and enhancing public safety. Now, they just want all your money, without any of the obligations in return. Of course, some people will claim, oh Marleen, but if we don’t do this, the City will lose $20 million a year, and then we’ll have to lay off even more police, is that what you want? Yes, this is the argument the City and the greedy police union and the greedy NGOs will all be making. And no, I don’t buy it. Because if the City were really going to use the money to hire officers back, and prevent layoffs, then they’d be willing to make those commitments in writing. But they’re not doing that. And why aren’t they doing that? Because they know that this $20 million, or $74 million, or however much they’re trying to extort from us, is not enough to really bail the City out in any meaningful, long term way. Because the City’s fiscal crisis is way bigger than they want to admit. See this article published recently in the Trib. http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_15536013?source=email Supporting any of these measures will do nothing to solve the City’s structural problems or cure elected officials of their addiction to wasting our money.
And just one more bit of happy news, in case you missed it. Jane Brunner’s law partner, Dan Siegel, is representing one of the Mehserle looters. Excuse me, I mean, “alleged” looters. You got it, folks. Our City Council president’s own law firm is arguing that a guy seen fleeing Foot Locker with an armload of stolen stuff isn’t guilty of looting an Oakland business. You can’t make this stuff up.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/07/27/18654790.php
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
The Origins Of The Measure Y "Fix"
The City has finally released the proposed language for "fixing" Measure Y. The part about eliminating any budget appropriations for 739 officers we all expected. What this means is the city will be able to start collecting the tax again if it passes (they claim they have now stopped) while at the same time deleting any police staffing requirements. The reality is that they haven't been complying with this requirement for the past two years anyway, because they failed to budget for police academies. So I sued them. The purpose of the fix is at least partially to get rid of $20 million of potential liability.
The rest of the proposed revisions stem directly from either the first or the second suit. The part about paying for recruitment and academy training is from the first suit. They want to be able to use Measure Y funds to pay for this even if the officer might not be placed into a Measure Y position for 9 years. As it stands now , the city owes the Measure Y fund around $15 million for illegal expenditures. Passage of this revision could reduce that somewhat, although it would be logistically impossible to implement. This proposal is just ridiculous.
Then there's the part about violence prevention programs. Under the current language, Measure Y funds can only be spent on certain types of violence prevention programs for youth. But the city has been spending it on whatever programs they wanted with no regard whatsoever for the limits contained in the measure. I sued them over this in my second suit. So now they're trying to change the language to mirror what the've actually been doing. Pathetic.
Moving along, there's a change related to the $4 million that the fire department gets. I pointed out to the city numerous times they weren't complying with those obligations either. The deputyvfire chief admitted there were no mentorship programs, even though they were promised under Measure Y. So the city is now trying to delete that requirement too.
I have to say I feel truly honored to have inspired a city-wide ballot measure. But please reject it anyway.
The rest of the proposed revisions stem directly from either the first or the second suit. The part about paying for recruitment and academy training is from the first suit. They want to be able to use Measure Y funds to pay for this even if the officer might not be placed into a Measure Y position for 9 years. As it stands now , the city owes the Measure Y fund around $15 million for illegal expenditures. Passage of this revision could reduce that somewhat, although it would be logistically impossible to implement. This proposal is just ridiculous.
Then there's the part about violence prevention programs. Under the current language, Measure Y funds can only be spent on certain types of violence prevention programs for youth. But the city has been spending it on whatever programs they wanted with no regard whatsoever for the limits contained in the measure. I sued them over this in my second suit. So now they're trying to change the language to mirror what the've actually been doing. Pathetic.
Moving along, there's a change related to the $4 million that the fire department gets. I pointed out to the city numerous times they weren't complying with those obligations either. The deputyvfire chief admitted there were no mentorship programs, even though they were promised under Measure Y. So the city is now trying to delete that requirement too.
I have to say I feel truly honored to have inspired a city-wide ballot measure. But please reject it anyway.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
A Tragic Day For Oakland
For more than two years I have been fighting to get the police staffing we were promised under Measure Y. Today, 80 police officers were laid off. The fact that this means the City can, even by its own admission, no longer collect Measure Y taxes, is no consolation.
While I do think that the OPOA should have shown more flexibility, ultimately, the blame is with City Hall. It is the City's obligation to manage its finances, to provide us with an appropriately sized police force, and not give away the store to excessive salary and benefit demands. Yes, the unions are greedy. But it is management's responsibility to say "no." Our elected officials have utterly failed us. Now, it is our responsibility to get rid of them, not reward them with a promotion!
A few weeks ago, they blamed OPOA for "fear mongering." But you just wait till they start campaigning for the new parcel tax and the "Measure Y fix." Then the real fear mongering will begin, and if the taxes don't pass, the City will blame us. But I know that the blood will be on their hands.
While I do think that the OPOA should have shown more flexibility, ultimately, the blame is with City Hall. It is the City's obligation to manage its finances, to provide us with an appropriately sized police force, and not give away the store to excessive salary and benefit demands. Yes, the unions are greedy. But it is management's responsibility to say "no." Our elected officials have utterly failed us. Now, it is our responsibility to get rid of them, not reward them with a promotion!
A few weeks ago, they blamed OPOA for "fear mongering." But you just wait till they start campaigning for the new parcel tax and the "Measure Y fix." Then the real fear mongering will begin, and if the taxes don't pass, the City will blame us. But I know that the blood will be on their hands.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
OPD Disbands Measure Y Community Policing While City Continues To Collect Measure Y Taxes
How can that be, you might ask? Well, this is the City of Oakland, after all, where laws and the will of the electorate get short shrift. So I shouldn’t be surprised.
As you may recall, the City originally told voters that under Measure Y, the tax couldn’t be collected unless the City maintained “minimum staffing” at 03/04 levels, that is, 739 non-Measure Y officers. Then, when they couldn’t get their act together and allowed staffing to drop to under 700, and got sued, they claimed that all that was required was “appropriation” for staffing, not actual staffing. Now, after passing the most recent budget, they must fully admit that they haven’t “appropriated” enough to justify continued collection of Measure Y taxes. And apparently within the next week, all of the Measure Y police officers are going to get transferred to patrol. But guess what? They’re still collecting Measure Y taxes!
That’s right. They admit that they’re not “appropriating.” They admit that they have no right to collect the tax. But they’re still doing it. I did a public records request for all documents indicating that they have advised the Alameda County Tax Collector and the various parking lot operators to stop collecting Measure Y taxes effective July 1. I got the response back - no responsive documents. No notices have gone out. The tax continues to be collected. Try justifying that in court, City folks.
Of course, they’re too busy trying to develop the next scheme to deceive the voters and cheat them out of even more money. They’re working on another proposal for a parcel tax. One that will cost you even more money, and with less accountability. Let’s just review what we got with Measure Y. So far, it has cost us over $100 million. We were promised full staffing at 802 for 10 years. What did we get? Full staffing at 802 for less than five months out of five years. And now the City has to abandon Measure Y. So we got 63 officers for less than 5 months, for a price tag of $100 million. Ripoff of the century. Nobody in their right mind would support another parcel tax under those circumstances.
The other ripoff is that Measure Y promised that the fire department would get $4 million a year, the police would get enough for their 63 officers, and the remainder (at least 40%) would go to violence prevention programs. At the last City Council meeting, Jane Brunner, without so much as five second of discussion, told the packed chambers that “Measure Y is off the table.” No doubt, she didn’t want the council to have to listen to a bunch of whiny Measure Y grantees talk about all the wonderful things their programs do and why their funding shouldn’t be cut. And apparently, it’s not being cut. Again, without any discussion. The balance in the Measure Y fund - is that going all to violence prevention? Even though by law, they are entitled to only 40%? Why is the police department not raising a stink about that?
Another thing to think about is my old lawsuit. The one where the judge said the City misspent close to $15 million of Measure Y funds, and has to pay it back. That case is on appeal now, but I expect a decision in the next six months. I also expect it will uphold the trial court’s decision. So what happens to that money? It was supposed to pay community policing officer salaries. How can they justify disbanding the community policing program when it will likely receive, as a matter of law, an infusion of $15 million that MUST be spent in accordance with Measure Y?
They can't. The only thing they can do is spend more of your tax dollars on attorney fees fighting the will of the voters. So that’s what they’ll probably do.
As you may recall, the City originally told voters that under Measure Y, the tax couldn’t be collected unless the City maintained “minimum staffing” at 03/04 levels, that is, 739 non-Measure Y officers. Then, when they couldn’t get their act together and allowed staffing to drop to under 700, and got sued, they claimed that all that was required was “appropriation” for staffing, not actual staffing. Now, after passing the most recent budget, they must fully admit that they haven’t “appropriated” enough to justify continued collection of Measure Y taxes. And apparently within the next week, all of the Measure Y police officers are going to get transferred to patrol. But guess what? They’re still collecting Measure Y taxes!
That’s right. They admit that they’re not “appropriating.” They admit that they have no right to collect the tax. But they’re still doing it. I did a public records request for all documents indicating that they have advised the Alameda County Tax Collector and the various parking lot operators to stop collecting Measure Y taxes effective July 1. I got the response back - no responsive documents. No notices have gone out. The tax continues to be collected. Try justifying that in court, City folks.
Of course, they’re too busy trying to develop the next scheme to deceive the voters and cheat them out of even more money. They’re working on another proposal for a parcel tax. One that will cost you even more money, and with less accountability. Let’s just review what we got with Measure Y. So far, it has cost us over $100 million. We were promised full staffing at 802 for 10 years. What did we get? Full staffing at 802 for less than five months out of five years. And now the City has to abandon Measure Y. So we got 63 officers for less than 5 months, for a price tag of $100 million. Ripoff of the century. Nobody in their right mind would support another parcel tax under those circumstances.
The other ripoff is that Measure Y promised that the fire department would get $4 million a year, the police would get enough for their 63 officers, and the remainder (at least 40%) would go to violence prevention programs. At the last City Council meeting, Jane Brunner, without so much as five second of discussion, told the packed chambers that “Measure Y is off the table.” No doubt, she didn’t want the council to have to listen to a bunch of whiny Measure Y grantees talk about all the wonderful things their programs do and why their funding shouldn’t be cut. And apparently, it’s not being cut. Again, without any discussion. The balance in the Measure Y fund - is that going all to violence prevention? Even though by law, they are entitled to only 40%? Why is the police department not raising a stink about that?
Another thing to think about is my old lawsuit. The one where the judge said the City misspent close to $15 million of Measure Y funds, and has to pay it back. That case is on appeal now, but I expect a decision in the next six months. I also expect it will uphold the trial court’s decision. So what happens to that money? It was supposed to pay community policing officer salaries. How can they justify disbanding the community policing program when it will likely receive, as a matter of law, an infusion of $15 million that MUST be spent in accordance with Measure Y?
They can't. The only thing they can do is spend more of your tax dollars on attorney fees fighting the will of the voters. So that’s what they’ll probably do.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Measure Y Oversight Committee Members Continue to Violate Conflict of Interest Laws and Function As Potted Plants
As I reported in a previous post, I filed a complaint with the Public Ethics Commission back in November regarding the MYOC’s failure to file conflict of interest disclosure statements, known as “Form 700s.” I also alleged that there were three members of the MYOC who appeared to have conflicts of interest, because they all worked for agencies that receive Measure Y funds.
Now, first of all, you’ve got to ask yourself: how hard is it to find somebody in Oakland that doesn’t work for an organization that receives Measure Y funds? And yet, one third of the members do! Don Blevins (who resigned recently, and worked for Alameda County Probation) was appointed by Ron Dellums. Qa’id Aqueel is the Director of “Safe Passages” for OUSD, and was appointed by Rebecca Kaplan. Michael Brown, a high school student, worked at “Attitudinal Healing,” and was appointed by Nancy Nadel. Even if it isn’t a technically illegal conflict of interest for these folks to serve on the committee, doesn’t it stink to high heaven that they supposedly oversee the doling out of funds to groups that get the money? Not in Oakland, apparently.
So when the PEC first considered my complaint, Executive Director Dan Purnell did a superficial investigation. I complained, and the PEC ordered a supplemental investigation. The new report is available online at the PEC website if you want to check it out, but basically, the high points are as follows: since filing my complaint, the MYOC has been added to the list of City commissions that have to file Form 700s. But despite this fact, only four of them have. They are now subject to $100 fines for not turning them in. From the report, and from what I hear elsewhere, many of the other commissions in Oakland do not diligently file Form 700s, and enforcement by the City has been extremely lax. The report requests the PEC to follow up on this, and I think that’s a very good thing.
Lastly, the report discusses the fact that under Government Code section 1090, the members of the MYOC could be subject to criminal penalties for failing to disclose their potential conflicts of interest, for not having that disclosure recorded in the minutes, and for not abstaining from any discussion on the relevant topics. The report indicates they never took those required actions. The main reason they can't be prosecuted is because, in order to actually violate the law, the person has to have some meaningful role in awarding the contract or influencing the decision in some way. According to Mr. Purnell’s report, the MYOC basically serves no useful purpose. They don’t really make any substantive recommendations. They just sit there and listen to informational reports. So basically, they’re just potted plants. And our prisons are crowded enough already.
Now, first of all, you’ve got to ask yourself: how hard is it to find somebody in Oakland that doesn’t work for an organization that receives Measure Y funds? And yet, one third of the members do! Don Blevins (who resigned recently, and worked for Alameda County Probation) was appointed by Ron Dellums. Qa’id Aqueel is the Director of “Safe Passages” for OUSD, and was appointed by Rebecca Kaplan. Michael Brown, a high school student, worked at “Attitudinal Healing,” and was appointed by Nancy Nadel. Even if it isn’t a technically illegal conflict of interest for these folks to serve on the committee, doesn’t it stink to high heaven that they supposedly oversee the doling out of funds to groups that get the money? Not in Oakland, apparently.
So when the PEC first considered my complaint, Executive Director Dan Purnell did a superficial investigation. I complained, and the PEC ordered a supplemental investigation. The new report is available online at the PEC website if you want to check it out, but basically, the high points are as follows: since filing my complaint, the MYOC has been added to the list of City commissions that have to file Form 700s. But despite this fact, only four of them have. They are now subject to $100 fines for not turning them in. From the report, and from what I hear elsewhere, many of the other commissions in Oakland do not diligently file Form 700s, and enforcement by the City has been extremely lax. The report requests the PEC to follow up on this, and I think that’s a very good thing.
Lastly, the report discusses the fact that under Government Code section 1090, the members of the MYOC could be subject to criminal penalties for failing to disclose their potential conflicts of interest, for not having that disclosure recorded in the minutes, and for not abstaining from any discussion on the relevant topics. The report indicates they never took those required actions. The main reason they can't be prosecuted is because, in order to actually violate the law, the person has to have some meaningful role in awarding the contract or influencing the decision in some way. According to Mr. Purnell’s report, the MYOC basically serves no useful purpose. They don’t really make any substantive recommendations. They just sit there and listen to informational reports. So basically, they’re just potted plants. And our prisons are crowded enough already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
