One of the main missions of the League of Women Voters is promoting “good government.” So imagine my disappointment when I learned that they had endorsed ALL of the tax measures being proposed by Oakland for the November election. I immediately sent an email to our local chapter leaders asking what information they relied in making their recommendation, and how this fit into their agenda. No response.
Today, I showed up at their “hot topics” meeting to hear them explain how they reached their inexplicable decision. They prefaced the presentation on the local ballot measures by explaining that their endorsement was based on the fact that “Oakland needs the money.” End of story. Now, the League is supposed to be “non-partisan,” but frankly, I can’t imagine anybody but a left-wing Democrat subscribing to such a position. The presenter, reading intently from her notes, explained that Measure X guaranteed no layoffs of police for three years, and promised that the police would begin contributing to their pensions. Probably somewhat impertinently, I announced to the group that Measure X said no such thing. The group stared. I clarified that no such language appeared anywhere in the ballot language, although the police union and the City were mounting a misinformation campaign on this issue. The League co-president piped up, stating that she had spoken the union president himself, and that this information came directly from him.
At that stage, I was incredulous. The LWV refused to respond to my emails, and yet consulted with the president of the police union, and passed on his lies and propaganda as if it were the gospel, and as if it were contained in the ballot measure itself! I gave the leaders a royal tongue lashing, and then let them move on to Measure BB. One member of the audience asked if the community police officers would at least be restored. The presenter stated that she had called the City Administrator representative who oversees the Measure Y Oversight Committee, and he told her, probably not. What? (She must have misunderstood - even the City wouldn’t sink the BB campaign!) I asked if it was Jeff Baker she had spoken to. She couldn’t say. By now, I was practically falling out of my chair. They were calling the union president, and the City Administrator’s office, and simply passing along the information without any interest in verifying it! Worse yet, I had gone out of my way to contact them, and they ignored me. Now, I should mention that the co-president actually called me out of the room and apologized for not calling me back, and asked me not to blame the League, but the reality is that all of these so-called government watchdogs were complicit in promoting the misinformation. I again voiced my disappointment and outrage, and provided the accurate information on Measure BB, but what more could I do?
At the end, the co-president meekly delivered the same apologist rhetoric delivered by our pathetic city officials, about the recession, how they could never have predicted the revenue shortfall, blah blah blah. Gag me. Afterwards, one of the members encouraged me to join the LWV. When they actually show the remotest interest in upholding the values they’re supposed to be promoting, let me know. Until then, I won’t waste my time.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Does Measure BB Permit Fire Station Closures?
Despite the City’s rhetoric that Measure BB only makes minor, technical changes to the language of Measure Y, it now appears that the measure may do more than gut the police staffing requirements; it also appears to eliminate the requirement that all 25 fire stations stay open.
That’s right. There is a change that was slipped into Measure BB that the City Council failed to discuss at either open session council meeting, and which they may not even have been aware of. The voters certainly won’t be aware of it, because it is not highlighted with underlining or strike-out, as all changes to Measure Y must be in the new measure. The result? Major confusion.
How did this happen? I’ll tell you how it happened. My first lawsuit highlighted the fact that Measure Y did not clarify which fund was supposed to pay for the recruitment and training of new police officers. My second lawsuit highlights the fact that despite the clear requirements of Measure Y, the City never “expanded” paramedic services, and never established mentorship programs at each fire station. So in the original draft of the “Measure Y fix,” language was included to address both of these issues. Neither language change was discussed at either council meeting - neither the meeting on July 22, nor the meeting on July 26. Instead, at the end of the July 22 meeting, when everybody was probably exhausted, Jane Brunner implied that something less than a quorum should meet to discuss the matter further (to avoid those pesky Brown Act requirements) and that the language changes should be kept to a minimum, in fear that voters would think something shady was afoot and not approve the measure.
Mysteriously, a new version of the “fix” was drafted on July 23. This version eliminated the two changes discussed above, except….it didn’t. Somehow, the language eliminating 25 fire station requirement remained, except without the required highlighting. (All changes to the language must be highlighted with underscoring or strike-through). At the July 26 meeting, the Council failed to discuss any of these new changes. In fact, I don’t even think they allowed public comment on the new version of the document. With virtually no discussion whatsoever, the “fix” was unanimously approved for placement on the ballot. To be honest, I actually thought the changes regarding police academy training and the fire department were still in the “fix,” until I got my voter information pamphlet over the weekend, and realized they weren’t in there. So then I watched the videos of the July 22 and July 26 meetings to figure out what happened, and realized those changes were eliminated, without any discussion! Except that the one change actually slipped through, without any notice!
So now, in the City Attorney’s “impartial analysis,” we are told that there is a specific change to Measure Y in terms of only requiring “up to” 25 fire houses, as opposed to actually requiring maintenance of all 25 fire houses. But a few sentences down, we’re told that all the changes are supposed to be indicated in underscoring or strike-through. Only problem is, the “up to” language regarding the firehouses isn’t highlighted in the required manner. The result: total confusion as to whether Measure BB actually makes a very significant change in the requirement that the City be guaranteed that all 25 fire stations remain open!
I have written to City officials to advise them of the problem, and will keep you posted.
That’s right. There is a change that was slipped into Measure BB that the City Council failed to discuss at either open session council meeting, and which they may not even have been aware of. The voters certainly won’t be aware of it, because it is not highlighted with underlining or strike-out, as all changes to Measure Y must be in the new measure. The result? Major confusion.
How did this happen? I’ll tell you how it happened. My first lawsuit highlighted the fact that Measure Y did not clarify which fund was supposed to pay for the recruitment and training of new police officers. My second lawsuit highlights the fact that despite the clear requirements of Measure Y, the City never “expanded” paramedic services, and never established mentorship programs at each fire station. So in the original draft of the “Measure Y fix,” language was included to address both of these issues. Neither language change was discussed at either council meeting - neither the meeting on July 22, nor the meeting on July 26. Instead, at the end of the July 22 meeting, when everybody was probably exhausted, Jane Brunner implied that something less than a quorum should meet to discuss the matter further (to avoid those pesky Brown Act requirements) and that the language changes should be kept to a minimum, in fear that voters would think something shady was afoot and not approve the measure.
Mysteriously, a new version of the “fix” was drafted on July 23. This version eliminated the two changes discussed above, except….it didn’t. Somehow, the language eliminating 25 fire station requirement remained, except without the required highlighting. (All changes to the language must be highlighted with underscoring or strike-through). At the July 26 meeting, the Council failed to discuss any of these new changes. In fact, I don’t even think they allowed public comment on the new version of the document. With virtually no discussion whatsoever, the “fix” was unanimously approved for placement on the ballot. To be honest, I actually thought the changes regarding police academy training and the fire department were still in the “fix,” until I got my voter information pamphlet over the weekend, and realized they weren’t in there. So then I watched the videos of the July 22 and July 26 meetings to figure out what happened, and realized those changes were eliminated, without any discussion! Except that the one change actually slipped through, without any notice!
So now, in the City Attorney’s “impartial analysis,” we are told that there is a specific change to Measure Y in terms of only requiring “up to” 25 fire houses, as opposed to actually requiring maintenance of all 25 fire houses. But a few sentences down, we’re told that all the changes are supposed to be indicated in underscoring or strike-through. Only problem is, the “up to” language regarding the firehouses isn’t highlighted in the required manner. The result: total confusion as to whether Measure BB actually makes a very significant change in the requirement that the City be guaranteed that all 25 fire stations remain open!
I have written to City officials to advise them of the problem, and will keep you posted.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Let’s Do Some Factchecking Before MYOC Takes A Formal Position On Measures X and BB
On Monday, September 20, 2010, the Measure Y Oversight Committee will consider taking a formal position on parcel tax measures X and BB. I encourage any of you who care about this issue to come and speak. I never ask you guys for anything, but this, I would really appreciate. I hope that after reading the following, you are as mad as I am, and have something to say about it. The meeting starts at 6:30.
Unfortunately, I missed the August 16 meeting, where City Administrator Dan Lindheim gave his spiel on these measures. Now, I should mention that a California Supreme Court decision, and the Government Code, formally prohibit public officials from using public resources to advocate for or against a ballot measure (or candidate). I had no problem with him showing up at last weekend’s Alameda County Central Democratic Committee endorsement meeting, because how he chooses to spend his Saturday afternoons is his business. But if he shows up at City Hall (a “City resource”) to provide “information” to the MYOC as a City Representative, it darn well better be neutral and “informational only,” as the law requires. In reviewing the verbatim speech he gave, it was hardly that, and here I’m going to take him royally to task:
Measure X
* Most Taxpayers Will Pay Zero to $10, not $360: Lindheim claimed that even though the tax is $360 per parcel, “the reality is for most citizens in Oakland the cost would be between $0-$10; the only persons subject to $360 would be single family homeowners who did not itemize their taxes since property taxes are deductible.” Excuse me? Who does Lindheim’s tax return? The same guy who does the Mayor’s? Why am I not surprised? I’d love to see some documentation to back up this ludicrous claim. Come to think of it, I think I’ll do a public records request….
* Rehire of police officers: Lindheim claimed the money raised would be sufficient to rehire the 80 laid off officers. Yes, but he neglected to mention that a lot of them would have already found new jobs, and wouldn’t be available for rehire. And he didn’t mention that with attrition at 50 officers a year, the force is still going to sink like a rock.
* The City Will Be Able To Do Whatever It Wants With The Money: Okay, this is honest. Lindheim said that Measure X “was written in a reasonably open manner to allow funds to go where needed and where City Council would designate.” Fair enough - but after Measure Y, do you trust the City with your money? Do you want your money to continue supporting bloated police pensions?
* Lindheim Doesn’t Know Anything About the Phrase “Rigorous Oversight” Lindheim stated the City Attorney’s office drafted Measure X. However, he wouldn’t say who was responsible for including the language that it provided for “rigorous oversight” in the ballot title.
Measure BB
* There’s Only One Change: Lindheim claims the “fix” makes only one change to Measure Y - i.e. eliminates the “appropriate” for 739 officer language. Not true. It makes numerous changes. It allows the City to borrow against the money in the hopes that this measure passes. It eliminates the restrictions on the types of violence prevention programs that can be funded. I guess Lindheim didn’t take the time to read the ballot measure that closely….
* The City Doesn’t Care About Police - Just Violence Prevention: Lindheim said: “Given the financial situation of the City, the view of City Council is the overriding need to provide resources for violence prevention functions, thus the Measure to suspend the 739 police officer appropriation for three years.” Well, at least that’s honest! The City is pretty much saying screw the police, and hand over all the money for violence prevention. Guess it’s more important to let those non-profit directors continue collecting their $180,000/year salaries than have the police actually respond to calls for service.
* The City Losing My Lawsuit Was No Big Deal: Lindheim said that the audit standards “have already been met and the judge has dismissed the issue.” No, not exactly. The judge ruled that the City failed to conduct the mandatory audits. The City decided not to appeal this issue, subsequently did the audits. I thought they were crappy, but the judge said it wasn’t his job to evaluate their quality, so we’re stuck with them.
Next, Lindheim totally glossed over why the City has been ordered to repay the Measure Y fund $15 million. He said “only some of the new officers were charged to Measure Y funds but not subsequently placed in Measure Y positions.” Not true! No new officers were EVER placed into Measure Y positions. He concluded by saying: “The consequence of the ruling is to move money from the General Fund to Measure Y - thus, net-to-net, it probably does not make much difference.” Oh puh-leez! If it doesn’t make much difference, then why is the City appealing the ruling? Where is the City going to find another $15 million in the general fund? This type of argument is just sad, and indicative of why the City is in the mess it’s in.
* Lindheim Doesn’t Know What The Word “Substantive” Means: Lindheim kept claiming that the modifications in Measure BB were not “substantive.” Okay, totally eliminating the purpose of increasing the size of the force isn’t “substantive?” Eliminating all the requirements for the fire department isn’t “substantive?” Time to brush up on your vocabulary, Dan.
I’ll be there on Monday evening to vociferously encourage the MYOC to formally not endorse these measures, and to help keep the focus on the facts. I hope you’ll join me.
Unfortunately, I missed the August 16 meeting, where City Administrator Dan Lindheim gave his spiel on these measures. Now, I should mention that a California Supreme Court decision, and the Government Code, formally prohibit public officials from using public resources to advocate for or against a ballot measure (or candidate). I had no problem with him showing up at last weekend’s Alameda County Central Democratic Committee endorsement meeting, because how he chooses to spend his Saturday afternoons is his business. But if he shows up at City Hall (a “City resource”) to provide “information” to the MYOC as a City Representative, it darn well better be neutral and “informational only,” as the law requires. In reviewing the verbatim speech he gave, it was hardly that, and here I’m going to take him royally to task:
Measure X
* Most Taxpayers Will Pay Zero to $10, not $360: Lindheim claimed that even though the tax is $360 per parcel, “the reality is for most citizens in Oakland the cost would be between $0-$10; the only persons subject to $360 would be single family homeowners who did not itemize their taxes since property taxes are deductible.” Excuse me? Who does Lindheim’s tax return? The same guy who does the Mayor’s? Why am I not surprised? I’d love to see some documentation to back up this ludicrous claim. Come to think of it, I think I’ll do a public records request….
* Rehire of police officers: Lindheim claimed the money raised would be sufficient to rehire the 80 laid off officers. Yes, but he neglected to mention that a lot of them would have already found new jobs, and wouldn’t be available for rehire. And he didn’t mention that with attrition at 50 officers a year, the force is still going to sink like a rock.
* The City Will Be Able To Do Whatever It Wants With The Money: Okay, this is honest. Lindheim said that Measure X “was written in a reasonably open manner to allow funds to go where needed and where City Council would designate.” Fair enough - but after Measure Y, do you trust the City with your money? Do you want your money to continue supporting bloated police pensions?
* Lindheim Doesn’t Know Anything About the Phrase “Rigorous Oversight” Lindheim stated the City Attorney’s office drafted Measure X. However, he wouldn’t say who was responsible for including the language that it provided for “rigorous oversight” in the ballot title.
Measure BB
* There’s Only One Change: Lindheim claims the “fix” makes only one change to Measure Y - i.e. eliminates the “appropriate” for 739 officer language. Not true. It makes numerous changes. It allows the City to borrow against the money in the hopes that this measure passes. It eliminates the restrictions on the types of violence prevention programs that can be funded. I guess Lindheim didn’t take the time to read the ballot measure that closely….
* The City Doesn’t Care About Police - Just Violence Prevention: Lindheim said: “Given the financial situation of the City, the view of City Council is the overriding need to provide resources for violence prevention functions, thus the Measure to suspend the 739 police officer appropriation for three years.” Well, at least that’s honest! The City is pretty much saying screw the police, and hand over all the money for violence prevention. Guess it’s more important to let those non-profit directors continue collecting their $180,000/year salaries than have the police actually respond to calls for service.
* The City Losing My Lawsuit Was No Big Deal: Lindheim said that the audit standards “have already been met and the judge has dismissed the issue.” No, not exactly. The judge ruled that the City failed to conduct the mandatory audits. The City decided not to appeal this issue, subsequently did the audits. I thought they were crappy, but the judge said it wasn’t his job to evaluate their quality, so we’re stuck with them.
Next, Lindheim totally glossed over why the City has been ordered to repay the Measure Y fund $15 million. He said “only some of the new officers were charged to Measure Y funds but not subsequently placed in Measure Y positions.” Not true! No new officers were EVER placed into Measure Y positions. He concluded by saying: “The consequence of the ruling is to move money from the General Fund to Measure Y - thus, net-to-net, it probably does not make much difference.” Oh puh-leez! If it doesn’t make much difference, then why is the City appealing the ruling? Where is the City going to find another $15 million in the general fund? This type of argument is just sad, and indicative of why the City is in the mess it’s in.
* Lindheim Doesn’t Know What The Word “Substantive” Means: Lindheim kept claiming that the modifications in Measure BB were not “substantive.” Okay, totally eliminating the purpose of increasing the size of the force isn’t “substantive?” Eliminating all the requirements for the fire department isn’t “substantive?” Time to brush up on your vocabulary, Dan.
I’ll be there on Monday evening to vociferously encourage the MYOC to formally not endorse these measures, and to help keep the focus on the facts. I hope you’ll join me.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Hitting The Campaign Trail
As if I didn't have enough to do with two lawsuits on my hands, I now find myself taking the lead in the opposition to the renamed "Measure BB" - i.e. the "Measure Y Fix." (It was going to be called Measure Y, but I guess people realized that could get confusing).
On Saturday I attended the Alameda County Central Democratic Committee endorsement meeting, and got less than five minutes to debate City Manager Dan Lindheim. He appeared to have a profound misunderstanding about numerous aspects of my litigation, which I subsequently tried to correct, but I'm not sure how much he cares about those sorts of details. His argument basically boiled down to, the City is broke, there are no other options, and my lawsuit was all about unimportant minutiae. Sorry, Dan, but misspending of $15 million and failure to conduct mandatory audits don't constitute minutiae in my book. And I think considering it as such is exactly why Oakland is in the pickle it's in.
On Monday, Jean Quan had a press conference, to which I was not invited, and she had a group of violence prevention folks, all of whose salaries get paid out of Measure Y funds, extoll their own virtues. Reading her press release, I realized it was time to launch another blog devoted to countering the myriad of misstatements. And so, http://noonmeasurebb.blogspot.com was born.
Thursday, I'll be addressing the Metropolitan Great Oakland Democratic Club. And hopefully, as the campgain season gains steam, I'll have numerous other opportunities to debate the issues. In the meantime, check out the new blog.
On Saturday I attended the Alameda County Central Democratic Committee endorsement meeting, and got less than five minutes to debate City Manager Dan Lindheim. He appeared to have a profound misunderstanding about numerous aspects of my litigation, which I subsequently tried to correct, but I'm not sure how much he cares about those sorts of details. His argument basically boiled down to, the City is broke, there are no other options, and my lawsuit was all about unimportant minutiae. Sorry, Dan, but misspending of $15 million and failure to conduct mandatory audits don't constitute minutiae in my book. And I think considering it as such is exactly why Oakland is in the pickle it's in.
On Monday, Jean Quan had a press conference, to which I was not invited, and she had a group of violence prevention folks, all of whose salaries get paid out of Measure Y funds, extoll their own virtues. Reading her press release, I realized it was time to launch another blog devoted to countering the myriad of misstatements. And so, http://noonmeasurebb.blogspot.com was born.
Thursday, I'll be addressing the Metropolitan Great Oakland Democratic Club. And hopefully, as the campgain season gains steam, I'll have numerous other opportunities to debate the issues. In the meantime, check out the new blog.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Newsflash: No Agreement Between OPOA and City Regarding Tax Measures and Layoffs
In a story published by the San Francisco Chronicle on August 10, and republished widely (including by the Wall Street Journal), it was reported that there was an agreement reached by OPOA under which the union members would pay more into their pensions, and accept a later retirement for new hires, if the $360 parcel tax is passed in November. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/10/BABM1ERE21.DTL&feed=rss.crime
The story goes on to say that “if voters pass the ballot measure, the City Council has agreed to lay off no officers for three years.” The same news was reported elsewhere, on the KTVU website. http://www.ktvu.com/news/24570454/detail.html
In any event, I was very curious to see the agreement between OPOA and the City with this “no layoff” provision. So I did a public records request. For once, I got a timely response. And guess what? There is no agreement! It does not exist!
I’m not sure who to fault here. Was OPOA lying? Or did the City really make such a promise, and OPOA was so incredibly naïve that they never asked for it in writing? Or did the press just get it wrong? In any event, the real message here is: DON’T VOTE FOR THIS TAX! Apparently OPOA (and maybe the City) want you to believe that if you pass it, there won’t be more layoffs. It is a LIE! There is no agreement.
Postscript 10/14/10: Matthai Kuruvila provided me with two versions of the agreement - one signed by OPOA; one signed by the City. They are dated July 26 and 27, 2010. It is not unusual for an agreement to be executed in counterparts. What this means is that I asked for responsive documents, which the City must have had in its possession, and they were not provided! So in fact, there was an agreement, but the City failed to provide it - leading me to believe that no agreement existed. Yet another blatant violation of the Public Records Act.
The story goes on to say that “if voters pass the ballot measure, the City Council has agreed to lay off no officers for three years.” The same news was reported elsewhere, on the KTVU website. http://www.ktvu.com/news/24570454/detail.html
In any event, I was very curious to see the agreement between OPOA and the City with this “no layoff” provision. So I did a public records request. For once, I got a timely response. And guess what? There is no agreement! It does not exist!
I’m not sure who to fault here. Was OPOA lying? Or did the City really make such a promise, and OPOA was so incredibly naïve that they never asked for it in writing? Or did the press just get it wrong? In any event, the real message here is: DON’T VOTE FOR THIS TAX! Apparently OPOA (and maybe the City) want you to believe that if you pass it, there won’t be more layoffs. It is a LIE! There is no agreement.
Postscript 10/14/10: Matthai Kuruvila provided me with two versions of the agreement - one signed by OPOA; one signed by the City. They are dated July 26 and 27, 2010. It is not unusual for an agreement to be executed in counterparts. What this means is that I asked for responsive documents, which the City must have had in its possession, and they were not provided! So in fact, there was an agreement, but the City failed to provide it - leading me to believe that no agreement existed. Yet another blatant violation of the Public Records Act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
