So last week’s Council meeting was quite a doozy. First, Desley Brooks made a great argument about why the Council shouldn’t even consider the Resolution on how to allocate the Measure I funds, because it was illegal “electioneering.” It was so great, in part because it practically mirrored the arguments outlined in my earlier letter. Then she asked the City Attorney on the dais (didn’t recognize her) for a legal opinion on whether it was legal to consider the resolution, given the obvious use of City resources, the timing of the resolution (the week ballots were being mailed out) and the famous California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott. The City Attorney admitted she was “unfamiliar” with that case, which totally floored me, because anybody representing public entities should know that case, but whatever. Not too impressive. In the end, they ended up passing on the matter so that the City Attorney could scramble around and do some last minute legal research.
In the interim, we were treated to the most blatant violation of the Brown Act I had ever witnessed. The dispute revolved around who was going to get appointed to the Port Commission: somebody named Margaret Gordon, or somebody named Jakada Imani. To be honest, I know next to nothing about both of them. But the Imani guy brought over 60 speakers, which I guess the Council didn’t want to listen to because they had already made up their minds. Which, of course, really defeats the whole point of public comment, doesn’t it? It was so completely obvious that they had already discussed the matter behind the scenes, in complete violation of the Brown Act, and decided the Imani guy had it in the bag, and that’s what Larry Reid said, telling everybody they could save themselves the trouble. So they all yelled and screamed with glee and then left, leaving us and the Gordon supporters just standing there with mouths agape. (Since then, I have heard the City admitted they blew it and now they have to do the vote over, but it really exposed the whole council meeting thing as totally farcical).
So then the Resolution came back for discussion, and everybody used their minutes to basically advocate for their position on the actual Measure (totally illegal), including Quan, who basically launched into a total commercial for the damn thing until Desley finally shut her up. But a few points were scored. Desley and Ignacio made it clear that it was absurd to be considering a resolution allocating funds the City had not received, and was not likely to receive, not to mention illegal electioneering. Even Jane Brunner said it didn’t pass the “smell test” and voted against it. Pat Kernighan admitted that it would be a “miracle” if the parcel tax passed, and both she and Libby Schaaf admitted over and over that the Resolution is not binding.
So there you have it, folks, a non-binding Resolution to allocate funds that the City almost certainly will never see. All staged, pretty much like a commercial, in violation of the law and common sense. Now get and vote NO on Measure I.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Clarifying question:
ReplyDeleteAre public officials allowed to publicly endorse any measure at all?
For example the Mayor endorsed Measure I at the Public Safety Conference, and Libby Schaaf endorsed Measure J in her newsletter & on blog posts - example, here http://oaklandlocal.com/posts/2011/10/measure-j-pension-reform-and-budget-relief-deserves-your-support-community-voices
If they are, where's the dividing line. If they aren't, how come nobody seems to enforce it? & what can be done after-the-fact?
Because it doesn't really seem to matter what the law is if there's no enforcement...
Livegreen: it is illegal for the City to use any taxpayer resources, i.e employee time, money, photocopies, meeting rooms etc. to campaign for or against a measure or candidate. So as long as the government official is on his/her "own time" and using his/her "own resources," there is no violation. The email blasts are supposedly done on private time using private resources. Unless somebody sues, under the Private Attorney General Doctrine, there is little enforcement, but drawing attention to it certainly helps. After all, it is our money.
ReplyDeleteMarleen