I spent the day today taking depositions of various City officials, including Dan Lindheim and Dan Purnell, Executive Director of the Public Ethics Commission. Here are the highlights:
1. The PEC has a rule that the Executive Director issue a formal report to the PEC within 30 business days, except if the PEC grants and extension. Mr. Purnell, admitted that he basically never complies with that rule, and never gets an extension. And he doesn't seem to care. Never mind that his job is to serve the commission devoted to upholding integrity and trust in government. Never mind that justice delayed in justice denied. He's collecting his paycheck; that's all he seems to care about.
2. The complaint regarding public records compliance that I filed in September, 2009, will likely not go to hearing until next year. The hearing is not likely to be completed until my lawsuit is over. Meanwhile, the City continues to spend tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer dollars fighting the public's right to timely access to documents. Money it doesn't have.
3. Lindheim, who admitted that his job is to "run the City," had only the vaguest ideas about my public records complaints. He'd never read Mr. Purnell's report, outlining numerous compliance problems. He wasn't aware of specific policies or procedures that the City had regarding compliance. He was only vaguely aware that this was a cause of action in my lawsuit.
4. Lindheim wasn't aware that PSOs had been pulled off of their beats, one for six months, nor was he aware that this was a specific allegation in my lawsuit.
5. Lindheim continues to defend the City's decision not to hold police academies (other than the two lateral academies that produced only 7 or 8 officers total) and deliberately reduce the size of the police force, as within the legalities of the former Measure Y.
6. Lindheim promised to staff the PSO positions in January, from the existing ranks of the police department. When asked about the crime reduction team positions (Measure Y/BB requires that at least 6 of the 63 positions be crime reduction team positions devoted to specific duties), Mr. Lindheim appeared to be unfamiliar with that particular requirement, or the fact that the requirement had not been fulfilled for most of the duration of Measure Y. However, he assured me that the City would "comply with the law." Yeah, I've heard that one before.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Congratulations Measure BB Supporters - We're Getting a SMALLER Police Force!
As a thank you to Measure BB supporters, City Administrator Dan Lindheim held a press conference today to announce that the City was planning to reduce the police force by another 35 officers. City officials proudly announced that the police force, today standing at 671, will be allowed to drop through attrition to 637. That, the City claims, is all it can afford. http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_16526767
Under the original Measure Y, taxpayers had some real negotiating power to force the City to get general fund support for police staffing back up to 739, so that it could collect Measure Y funds. But they gave all that power away by voting for BB. Now, thanks to the deception of BB promoters, and the ignorance of most voters, homeowners will be paying $270 in taxes over the next three years, for an ever-shrinking police force.
BB supporter funded literature promised a "restoration" of the 63 Measure Y positions, leading many to believe that if it passed, 63 additional officers would be added to the force. Of course I knew it didn't mean that, and did my best to communicate that to the masses, but people heard what the wanted to hear, or didn't get the message (I didn't have $100,000 of union or taxpayer money to spend on fliers) and voted for BB.
And of course most residents didn't understand that any police officers brought in to fill the PSO and other Measure Y positions would have to come from within the existing force, thereby decimating the size of other necessary units within the force. When I tried to explain this on election day to a reporter unfamiliar with Measure Y, she didn't believe me. After today's press conference, however, she does.
Of course, the City's budget numbers are subject to some skepticism. Last week, Ignacio Delafuente said the budget deficit for 10/11 would be $50 million. Today, Lindheim was claiming it would be $10 million. What's a $40 million discrepancy between City leaders? If any of the numbers were crunched by Jean Quan, who has difficulty with the distinction between positive and negative numbers, addition, and basic multiplication, we should all wonder.
Meanwhile, the City's financial shenanigans were recently confirmed in amended "discovery" responses I received through the litigation. Turns out that despite the clear language of Measure Y, that PSOs serve "solely" the residents of their beats, at least two were reassigned outside their beats. One was reassigned for a full six months, leaving his regular beat totally uncovered. Worse yet, the City billed the entire amount of his salary (probably around $60,000 for that period of time) to Measure Y, even though he was performing no Measure Y duties. Thanks to my lawsuit, the City has "uncovered" this "clerical" error and supposedly will refund the money to Measure Y. And these are the bozos that you just decided to trust another $60 million of your hard earned cash to, no strings attached. Just sayin'.
Under the original Measure Y, taxpayers had some real negotiating power to force the City to get general fund support for police staffing back up to 739, so that it could collect Measure Y funds. But they gave all that power away by voting for BB. Now, thanks to the deception of BB promoters, and the ignorance of most voters, homeowners will be paying $270 in taxes over the next three years, for an ever-shrinking police force.
BB supporter funded literature promised a "restoration" of the 63 Measure Y positions, leading many to believe that if it passed, 63 additional officers would be added to the force. Of course I knew it didn't mean that, and did my best to communicate that to the masses, but people heard what the wanted to hear, or didn't get the message (I didn't have $100,000 of union or taxpayer money to spend on fliers) and voted for BB.
And of course most residents didn't understand that any police officers brought in to fill the PSO and other Measure Y positions would have to come from within the existing force, thereby decimating the size of other necessary units within the force. When I tried to explain this on election day to a reporter unfamiliar with Measure Y, she didn't believe me. After today's press conference, however, she does.
Of course, the City's budget numbers are subject to some skepticism. Last week, Ignacio Delafuente said the budget deficit for 10/11 would be $50 million. Today, Lindheim was claiming it would be $10 million. What's a $40 million discrepancy between City leaders? If any of the numbers were crunched by Jean Quan, who has difficulty with the distinction between positive and negative numbers, addition, and basic multiplication, we should all wonder.
Meanwhile, the City's financial shenanigans were recently confirmed in amended "discovery" responses I received through the litigation. Turns out that despite the clear language of Measure Y, that PSOs serve "solely" the residents of their beats, at least two were reassigned outside their beats. One was reassigned for a full six months, leaving his regular beat totally uncovered. Worse yet, the City billed the entire amount of his salary (probably around $60,000 for that period of time) to Measure Y, even though he was performing no Measure Y duties. Thanks to my lawsuit, the City has "uncovered" this "clerical" error and supposedly will refund the money to Measure Y. And these are the bozos that you just decided to trust another $60 million of your hard earned cash to, no strings attached. Just sayin'.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Goliath BBeats David
Final results: Yes 70; No 30%
I knew we were in trouble when I read this quote from yesterday's Trib: “Moore… did, however, vote for more police through a parcel tax, and he hopes it goes some way toward improving safety for Oakland’s children.” Too bad there was nothing on the ballot that actually provided for “more police.” This poor slob actually thought one of the measures provided for more police. Then, another reader pointed out that the lone Republican mayoral candidate, Arnie Fields, supported Measure BB because "we need more education."
But the really bad news came at around 7:30 p.m. when some women in my Crucible glass studio lab were talking elections and about how confusing everything was on the ballot. One of them is a graduate of Hastings Law School. I asked her if she happened to see my name in the Voter Information Pamphlet. She said she hadn't. She had no understanding of what the measure would do. (I assume she didn't read the arguments pro and con). She admitted that she was "confused" by the measure. And this is a women who went to law school and passed the bar!
So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the measure passed. After all, the title (which is apparently what most people read, and never get any futher) said: "...at no additional cost...." People read that and think it won't cost them any money. (Watching KTVU news this morning, they repeated this same misinformation).
Voters read that Measure BB "restores" 63 community policing positions, so they think police staffing will go up. It was the sly City Council and City Attorneys who came up with this language, and without another vicious legal battle, there was nothing I could do about it. So the hoodwinking of the public is permitted to continue, and now BB has passed.
I should also mention that the supporters of BB (all the people who stood to benefit financially) probably spent around $100,000 for flyers and websites and whatnot. We spent zero. They had people phone banking and walking neighborhoods. We don't have those kind of resources. They had the endorsements of the all the establishment people. I wish that angry taxpayers like me would be more organized, but we don't have the automatic cash flow and pre-organized PACs that the unions and the non-profits do. It was not a fair fight.
But every cloud has a silver lining. I stopped by the Don Perata party last night and chatted with OPOA President Dom Arotzarena, who assured me that the City would indeed be filling the 63 Measure Y positions right away. According to him, "they have to!" I sure hope he's right. Of course, this means other areas of the police force are going to get decimated, but for those of us who valued our neighborhood PSO, I suppose this is a good thing. In addition, it does give the City a much needed income stream to fund additional police, so I am hopeful that the City will rehire many of the officers laid off earlier this year. Lastly, if Perata is confirmed as mayor, I am hopeful that he will be able to negotiate necessary concessions with the union that will free up additional money necessary to get the force up to where it needs to be. Maybe with some actual leadership in City Hall, by someone who seems to appreciate the value of public safety, we will start making some progress.
In the meantime, however, I will continue with the litigation and my other efforts to keep our government honest and accountable. If the past is any indicator, I have a long and rough road ahead.
I knew we were in trouble when I read this quote from yesterday's Trib: “Moore… did, however, vote for more police through a parcel tax, and he hopes it goes some way toward improving safety for Oakland’s children.” Too bad there was nothing on the ballot that actually provided for “more police.” This poor slob actually thought one of the measures provided for more police. Then, another reader pointed out that the lone Republican mayoral candidate, Arnie Fields, supported Measure BB because "we need more education."
But the really bad news came at around 7:30 p.m. when some women in my Crucible glass studio lab were talking elections and about how confusing everything was on the ballot. One of them is a graduate of Hastings Law School. I asked her if she happened to see my name in the Voter Information Pamphlet. She said she hadn't. She had no understanding of what the measure would do. (I assume she didn't read the arguments pro and con). She admitted that she was "confused" by the measure. And this is a women who went to law school and passed the bar!
So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the measure passed. After all, the title (which is apparently what most people read, and never get any futher) said: "...at no additional cost...." People read that and think it won't cost them any money. (Watching KTVU news this morning, they repeated this same misinformation).
Voters read that Measure BB "restores" 63 community policing positions, so they think police staffing will go up. It was the sly City Council and City Attorneys who came up with this language, and without another vicious legal battle, there was nothing I could do about it. So the hoodwinking of the public is permitted to continue, and now BB has passed.
I should also mention that the supporters of BB (all the people who stood to benefit financially) probably spent around $100,000 for flyers and websites and whatnot. We spent zero. They had people phone banking and walking neighborhoods. We don't have those kind of resources. They had the endorsements of the all the establishment people. I wish that angry taxpayers like me would be more organized, but we don't have the automatic cash flow and pre-organized PACs that the unions and the non-profits do. It was not a fair fight.
But every cloud has a silver lining. I stopped by the Don Perata party last night and chatted with OPOA President Dom Arotzarena, who assured me that the City would indeed be filling the 63 Measure Y positions right away. According to him, "they have to!" I sure hope he's right. Of course, this means other areas of the police force are going to get decimated, but for those of us who valued our neighborhood PSO, I suppose this is a good thing. In addition, it does give the City a much needed income stream to fund additional police, so I am hopeful that the City will rehire many of the officers laid off earlier this year. Lastly, if Perata is confirmed as mayor, I am hopeful that he will be able to negotiate necessary concessions with the union that will free up additional money necessary to get the force up to where it needs to be. Maybe with some actual leadership in City Hall, by someone who seems to appreciate the value of public safety, we will start making some progress.
In the meantime, however, I will continue with the litigation and my other efforts to keep our government honest and accountable. If the past is any indicator, I have a long and rough road ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
