Measure Y Oversight Committee Smells The Coffee

I have to hand it to the Measure Y Oversight Committee - some of them are perking up. Maybe they’re tired of spending hours at boring meetings and getting nothing done, being ignored, and feeling impotent. Maybe they’ve taken some of my criticism to heart. But whatever the reason, I was happy to see some of them making some excellent points and asking some really good questions tonight on the subject of the Measure Y “fix” and the $360 parcel tax.

In particular, a couple of them (Peter Barnett and Joanne Brown) expressed frustration and concern about the City’s use of the term “rigorous oversight” (for the $360 tax) and “no additional cost” (for the fix), when these terms are used in the titles of the ballot measures. One referred to the language as so inaccurate and disingenuous as to be a “fraud perpetrated on the voters.” The City Attorney’s office defended the language by claiming that it had been “considered by the City Council.” (Well, if you can find any discussion of it on the DVD, Mr. Morodomi, you just let me know, because it ain’t there!) Next, Ms. Brown asked if members of the MYOC could face potential liability for not exercising “rigorous oversight,” when everybody knew full well they didn’t have the tools to do that. Mr. Morodomi responded that if it’s not in the actual text of the measure, then there’s no obligation, and basically told her, don’t worry about it. Oh, I get it - you can put whatever lies you want into the title of a ballot measure, which may be the only thing voters actually read, and it can be as misleading and inaccurate as the City wants it to be, and has no binding effect. While this is the same argument they made with Measure Y, to hear him actually say it in this context made me nauseous. How do people like that sleep at night?

But the piece de resistance was Jeff Baker, Measure Y Administrator, informing the MYOC that they shouldn’t have allowed me more than two minutes to speak, and that people watching the meeting may have mistakenly believed that I was a City official, as opposed to “merely a member of the public.“ Mr. Baker’s comments demonstrated his clear disdain for “mere” members of the public, as well as a level of idiocy that you cannot possibly imagine without watching the tape for yourself. For those of you who have never heard me speak, there is no mistaking me for a “City representative.“ I was there haranguing the City for its dishonesty and lack of candor in the ballot proposals, decrying the previous failings of Measure Y, talking about my litigation against the City, and he thinks I come across as a City representative? It was positively laughable. Of course, his real purpose was to chastise the Committee for allowing me more than the minimum amount of time allotted - and discouraging any more of my unpleasant “public participation” in the future. And as I pointed out in rebuttal, Mr. Baker would have me barred from the meetings entirely if he could. Given that practically no member of the public ever shows up at these meetings, let alone speaks, the idea of muzzling me, particularly given my obvious interest and zeal in the subject matter, is an affront to the democratic process, and Mr. Baker should be ashamed of himself.

Chair Jose Dorado (who’s running against Desley Brooks for City Council, by the way) wanted to quickly move along to the next item. But Ms. Brown requested discussion, indicating that this was an important topic, and that several of the members were under the impression that the main purpose of the meeting was to discuss how they felt about the “fix” proposal. That Mr. Dorado had no interest in actually discussing the matter spoke volumes. Ms. Brown solicited input from the other (usually silent) members, and many of them, if not most, actually spoke! And they had opinions. And got engaged! I was actually encouraged. Some expressed frustration at the fact that the MYOC was not consulted about the “fix” proposal at all. Others noted that when the MYOC asks for information, they are frequently ignored. They acknowledged that the proposal for “rigorous oversight” was essentially a joke, given what has actually been going on. Particular credit goes to Qa’id Aqeel for actually making a motion to pass a resolution opposing the Measure Y fix. He eloquently expressed that the MYOC is “like a façade” and that the Committee needed to send a message to the City. Kudos to Michael Brown, who came up to me after the meeting to introduce himself and chat. He was obviously a very mature and bright young man. But I still don’t think high school students should be on the committee.

In the end, Mr. Morodomi quickly disposed of voting on Mr. Aqueel’s proposal, claiming it had not been properly agendized. (I thought the description was good enough to meet Brown Act requirements, but clearly, he wanted to rally his troops to squash it). So the matter should be on next month’s agenda. If you have strong feelings about the subject, I urge you to come and speak your mind.

Rebutting The Rebuttal

All arguments pro and con on the ballot measures for November’s ballot have now been finalized and submitted. While I won’t have the opportunity to rebut the “rebuttal” to my original argument in the voter information pamphlet, I’ll do it here.

The supporters claim that the City can’t meet the minimum staffing/appropriation requirements in the current Measure Y “because of the local impacts of the global recession.” Interesting. None of our neighboring jurisdictions are slashing their police forces, so how is the global recession to blame? The supporters then go on to claim: “Opponents misstate basic facts.” Now, I took grave exception to this. So I called one of the signatories, Don Link (who is a big Jean Quan supporter and thinks she’s a financial whiz bang) and asked him which “basic facts” I had misstated. To his credit, he called me back and was very polite. But he admitted he hadn’t written the statement. He claimed he didn’t know who had, and said he hadn’t actually parsed every sentence. He wasn’t able to cite any specific facts that I had “misstated.” He admitted that Jane Brunner had asked him to be a signatory, and frankly, I suspect that she was the one that wrote this thing, but I’ll save my cross-examination of her for another time. In any event, it was very disappointing that people would just sign something like this, which is going to get presented to all Oakland voters, without checking the facts. Part of my crusade is about accountability and honesty and integrity, and Mr. Link is not supporting that goal by agreeing to sign a statement that he can’t back up himself. While I may use strong rhetoric at times, when it comes to “basic facts,” I don’t misstate them. I have evidence to back up every factual assertion.

The rebuttal goes on to claim that “crime has declined substantially for 3 consecutive years.” So, my understanding of the facts is that crime was down in 2009 and 2008, but I don’t know about this year, and I thought crime was up in 2007. I asked Mr. Link which statistics he was relying on, and he couldn’t cite any. Next, the statement claims: “The City successfully added 150 officers to the police force and staffed 84 Measure Y-related officers (exceeding the 63 required positions.” I stopped interrogating Mr. Link about these “facts” because it was pretty clear by then he didn’t know where the information came from. But seriously, if you’re going to claim stuff like this, you better be able to back it up with evidence. So if you take the police force at its all time lowest level, and its all time high level, maybe 150 officers were added. But we had those extra officers for less than six months! That’s hardly anything to crow about. As for 84 Measure Y-related officers - I’d say that’s a bald faced lie. I challenge anybody to support that number with evidence. The reality is that until I sued the City, only a fraction of the Measure Y officer positions were filled.

The anonymous drafter goes on to claim that “in response to legal challenges, the Court substantially ruled in the City’s favor.” Okay, only a lawyer could have written that. Trust me, not a single one of the signatories knows enough about the lawsuit to make such a claim. I didn’t win on everything, but the Court did determine ME to be the prevailing party and I was awarded my costs as a result. The City hasn’t paid me yet, but the judgment was clearly in my favor.

The other signatories included Jakada Imani (executive director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights), Maya Dillard Smith, former chair of the Measure Y Oversight Committee (who now works for Youth Uprising), and Lucy Kolin (co-chair of Oakland Community Organizations.) These are all groups that have a clear financial incentive to keep Measure Y funded. They know which side their bread is buttered on, no doubt about it. The final signatory was Dan Siegel, Jane Brunner’s law partner. The same guy who, last I heard, was representing one of the Mehserle verdict “alleged” looters seen fleeing Foot Locker with an armful of merchandise. Of course, having fewer police on the streets of Oakland benefits clients like that.

The New Measure Y and How To Get a Tax Refund

The Mesaure Y Castration will be known on the November, 2010 ballot as - you guessed it, "Measure Y." Guess I need to change the name of my blog, huh? Do you think the City did that intentionally? That would just be too clever for them. Anyway, just to give you an update on where things stand, my argument "against" the Measure Y revision/castration was accepted by the City, and Ignacio Delafuente's argument "against" the new Measure X (the $360 tax) was also accepted. I read Delafuente's argument, which was cosigned some other prominent Oaklanders, and I liked it, so that's good.

In the meantime, the City has informed me that there's nothing they can do about my objections to the ballot titles. Since the filing deadline with the Registrar of Voters has passed, we're all stuck with the misleading language (i.e. "no additional cost" for the new Measure Y, and "rigorous" oversight for the $360 tax) unless somebody files a legal challenge. I'll let somebody else take that one on.

A couple of days ago posters asked about class actions and claims against the City. Measure Y actually does have language prohibiting class actions, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't file a claim for a refund. In fact, you better file your claim pronto if you want to piggyback on my efforts. The City may claim that this is a prerequisite to getting your money back. So here's a sample from the letter I sent them - feel free to cut and paste. If your claim is denied, make sure you appeal that denial to the "Business Tax Review Board" within 60 days. Good luck!

Director of Finance
Finance & Management Agency
City of Oakland City Hall
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612

Re: Claim for Measure Y Refund

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the terms of Measure Y, please consider this a request for a refund for Measure Y taxes collected in 2008 and 2009. The basis for the refund claim is the City’s continued violation of numerous aspects of Measure Y, as outlined in [ ] previous litigation (Sacks v. City of Oakland) and previous recent correspondence with the City Attorney’s Office. Specifically, Measure Y provides: “Minimum Police Staffing Prerequisite at Fiscal Year 03/04 Level - No tax authorized by this ordinance may be collected in any year that the appropriation for staffing of sworn uniformed police officers is at a level lower than the amount necessary to maintain the number of uniformed officers employed by the City of Oakland for the Fiscal Year 03-04 (739).”

Last fall, the City of Oakland cancelled the 166th police academy. In the Spring of 2009 the City adopted a budget that contained no appropriations for additional police academies. As a result, the police force has dropped below 802 (its authorized strength). Therefore, the City failed to appropriate sufficient non Measure Y funds to maintain the police force at 739 and is in violation of Measure Y. Collection of the tax is patently illegal.

I [ ] received my 2009 Secured Property Tax Statement indicating a Measure Y tax for $90.72. Last year the tax was for $88.00. For most of 2008, the police force was under its authorized strength of 802 officers as well, and the City failed to appropriate sufficient funds for that year as well. On this basis, I am claiming a refund for both years. I look forward to receiving a prompt response to this demand.

Arguments Against New Parcel Tax Measures for November Ballot

Today I filed my formal ballot arguments against the two tax measures I find most offensive. To be honest, I really haven’t studied the others. In any event, my argument against the $360 parcel tax was submitted just in case Ignacio Delafuente doesn’t manage to get his filed on time. The way the rules are worded, city council members get priority in submitting ballot arguments. My thanks go out to the people who agreed to serve as signatories to the Argument Against the Measure Y revision - my attorney/co-counsel, David A. Stein; members of the Community Policing Advisory Board, Marcus Johnson and Jim Dexter, and Charles Pine of Oakland Residents for Peaceful Neighborhoods. Below are the arguments.

Argument Against Measure #2 (Measure Y Castration)

In 2004 voters approved Measure Y, generously agreeing to tax themselves to add 63 police officers to a staff of 739. In the 5 ½ years since, taxpayers have paid over $100 million in Measure Y taxes. The City took the money, but didn’t add the police officers. The City provided the promised staffing for a total of less than 6 months. The City was successfully sued regarding Measure Y violations. An Alameda County Superior Court Judge found that the City misspent millions of Measure Y dollars, and failed to conduct mandatory audits.

Now the City wants to have taxpayers continue to pay and not even promise to budget for the promised police force. This tax will cost homeowners over $90.00 per year. Don’t be fooled. Nothing in this measure prevents the City from reducing the police force even further. If this measure passes, the City can tax residents and reduce the police force at the same time. The City could still continue to lay off police officers, not hold new police academies (resulting in a loss by attrition of approximately 50 officers per year) and layoff police officers. In sum, the City wants taxpayer money, without any promise of maintaining, much less adding to the police force.

The politicians who wrote this Measure Y revision are the same people who have mismanaged Oakland’s finances and failed to properly implement Measure Y. The revision removes accountability provisions and is for their benefit, not the public’s.

We need more police, not less. Don’t give the City a blank check. Oakland’s taxes are already among the highest in the state. This tax does nothing to address Oakland’s structural financial problems. Let the City know that the taxpayers did their part and the City needs to live up to its promises.Vote NO.

Argument Against Measure #3 ($360 Parcel Tax)

This new tax measure will cost homeowners $360 a year, and apartment residents $180 a year, and promises no additional police officers, nor any specific public safety improvements, in return. The City wants to collect $54 million annually from taxpayers, but doesn’t want to commit itself to actually providing additional services.

The City claims that this tax will support “public safety.“ It does not. The tax will permit the City to continue to lay off police officers, and the police force will continue to lose approximately 50 additional officers per year due to attrition. No minimum staffing requirements are provided for. While some money could be used for violence prevention programs, there is nothing in the measure that would require the programs to have any kind of track record, be effective, or even be located in Oakland! As currently written, the City could use most of the money raised to pay for any public safety employee salary and benefit increases. Excessive public employee salaries and pensions are a major cause of Oakland‘s current fiscal crisis. Particularly in this economy, it is not fair to ask taxpayers to foot the bill for this.

Voters approved Measure Y in 2004 and generously agreed to tax themselves because the City promised, in return, that it would provide citizens with 63 additional police officers. Years later, the promised officers were still not hired. The City was successfully sued, and was found by an Alameda County Superior Court to have misspent millions of Measure Y dollars, and to have failed to conduct mandatory audits. The City wants us, the taxpayers, to bail out the politicians.

This tax is going to be more than twice as expensive as the failed Measure Y, and offer even less accountability. Vote No.

And The Lying Begins

It sure didn’t take long for City officials to start lying to convince unsuspecting voters to support the “Measure Y Castration” and “Money for Nothing” ballot proposals. According to the “Call For Direct Arguments and Rebuttals” related to the ballot measures, the proposed revision to Measure Y will be “at no additional cost to taxpayers.” Well, let’s see, if I’m paying zero dollars now, and I’ll be paying 90 some odd dollars if I approve this modification, that’s - oh yes, 90 additional dollars out of my wallet. So I would have to disagree that $90 is “no additional cost.” Now, I’m sure for some of those City folks who are collecting obscene salaries and pensions, $90 might seem like nothing to them, but frankly, I think it’s an insult to voters and taxpayers, particularly in this economy, to claim that $90 is “no additional cost.” So yes, I think that’s a bald faced LIE, and I’m calling the city on it.

Next, with respect to the $360 parcel tax that promises not a single additional police officer (hence the “Money for Nothing” tax proposal), the City claims that it will be subject to “rigorous oversight by a citizens committee.” We all know what kind of “oversight” Measure Y received. The City considered them to be so impotent and useless that it claimed the members were not required to file Form 700 Conflict of Interest Disclosures - until I filed a formal public ethics complaint about the matter. It is also worth mentioning that Nancy Nadel appointed a 16-year-old child to the committee. Somehow, I don’t think children are capable of performing “oversight” of millions of taxpayer dollars, but I understand some people disagree with me on that point. So by all means, fire your accountant, and hand your personal finances over to your teenager. But not my tax dollars, thank you very much.

Then there’s the minor detail regarding the MYOC’s responsibility for reviewing the annual audits. The audits that never got done, until I sued, proved that the City had misspent $15 million, and that the City had never conducted any of the audits required by law. So, as you can see, the history of “oversight” performed in the past does not exactly give me comfort. Adding the word “rigorous” does nothing to ease my concerns. Rather, it appears to be a word designed specifically to trick voters into thinking that they’ll be getting far more than they actually will.

Now, if the ballot language required that the members of the “oversight committee” needed CPAs or comparable backgrounds in government finance, and needed to be at least of voting age, and would be subject to a “rigorous” screening process, well, maybe then I could go with the word “rigorous.” But given the current selection of potted plants occupying the MYOC seats, I would hardly consider the type of oversight currently offered to fit the definition of that term. I don’t thnk this new tax offers anything more.

So, folks, just when you thought your City government couldn’t lose any more credibility, we get this. It’s just a taste of what’s to come. I look forward to many more blog entries critiquing the misleading, scandalous lies that the City and its campaign supporters will no doubt try to fill your eyes and ears with. Until then, I have filed a formal objection to the proposed ballot descriptions with the City. I’ll keep you posted, but I’m not holding my breath.