After the City idiotically decided to lay off 80 officers last year, that meant they had to discontinue collecting Measure Y taxes, including both the parcel tax and the parking tax. Except they didn’t, at the Oakland Airport. According to documents produced in response to a discovery request, the City admitted that the Oakland Airport erroneously continued to collect the tax. The City “redacted” the amount of money illegally collected from the emails produced, but I did a follow-up public records request for the full amount at issue, and last week, the City revealed that the total amount at issue is over $145,000 for the month of July, 2010.
The money is currently sitting in some sort of an impound account, apparently, and if you parked at the airport during that month, that means the tax was illegally collected from you, and you can make a claim for a refund. Realistically, how many people would actually do this? I mean, you pay $15 to $30 to park your car, which means the tax isn’t going to be more than $1.50 to $3.00 for most people. Sitting down at your computer to type out a demand letter, and putting a stamp on the envelope, means that it really isn’t worth the effort. But it’s everybody’s $1.50 tax adding up to the full amount of $145,000, and the principle of the matter, that’s important. An example of yet another screw-up by City officials, and the citizens (as well as out-of-towners) getting screwed. Just thought you should know, in case you wanted to make a claim. Or cared to know about yet another violation of Measure Y.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
When The City Gets Caught Breaking The Law, The City Changes The Law
As you all know, one of the main allegations in my pending lawsuit is that the City violated Measure Y in 2009/10 when it failed to “appropriate” sufficient general fund money to “maintain” 739 officers, and yet, continued to collect Measure Y taxes. So what did the City do? It put Measure BB on the ballot, and changed the law, so that now it can collect Measure Y taxes no matter how small the police force gets. No need to beat that dead horse.
But another claim in my lawsuit that I haven’t really discussed is the fact that City has awarded millions and millions of dollars in Measure Y funds to non-profits without any competitive bidding or “request for proposal” process. As anybody who has ever solicited “bids” on a project knows (for auto or home repairs), the idea is to ensure that you get the best service for the lowest cost. This is particularly important for public entities, where there’s all sorts of temptation and incentives to award contracts for other reasons, like the guy that fixes sewer lines is the City Councilman’s brother -in-law, or that little law firm that handles collections donated a lot of money to so-and-so. Patronage, I believe it’s called. Anyway, to avoid these scams, there are numerous statutes in the Public Contracts Code requiring bidding, as well as in Oakland’s own City ordinances. But the City has been violating the laws for years, and not just with Measure Y money. They have defended the practice, arguing that competitive bidding doesn’t apply to “grants.”
Well, what the heck is a “grant?” It is defined nowhere in any City ordinance. The dictionary definition is “a sum of money given especially by the government to a person or organization for a special purpose.” Can you think of any logical reason why the government should dole out grants without some sort of bidding process? Well, patronage comes to mind. Notably, there is no exception in the Oakland Municipal Code for awards of “grants.” Well, there wasn’t. Until last month. When unbeknownst to me, the City Council quietly amended the Municipal Code to “clarify” that grants were not encompassed in any bidding requirements ordinarily applicable to contracts for goods and services. It passed unanimously on January 18, 2011 by the City Council. Ironically, the same day that my litigation settlement proposal was considered by the Council in closed session (and summarily rejected). Coincidence? I think not!
So there you have it, folks. The City is mired in debt. It doesn’t have any money to pay for basic services. And yet, it wants to be free to dole out millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to whichever nonprofit yells the loudest at Council meetings; whoever has made the appropriate donations/bribes to the appropriate government officials; whoever has paid their dues walking the streets garnering support for the latest parcel tax. And it just gave itself unanimous permission to do so. Why obey the law, when you can just change it to suit your needs? No need, when you’re the City of Oakland.
But another claim in my lawsuit that I haven’t really discussed is the fact that City has awarded millions and millions of dollars in Measure Y funds to non-profits without any competitive bidding or “request for proposal” process. As anybody who has ever solicited “bids” on a project knows (for auto or home repairs), the idea is to ensure that you get the best service for the lowest cost. This is particularly important for public entities, where there’s all sorts of temptation and incentives to award contracts for other reasons, like the guy that fixes sewer lines is the City Councilman’s brother -in-law, or that little law firm that handles collections donated a lot of money to so-and-so. Patronage, I believe it’s called. Anyway, to avoid these scams, there are numerous statutes in the Public Contracts Code requiring bidding, as well as in Oakland’s own City ordinances. But the City has been violating the laws for years, and not just with Measure Y money. They have defended the practice, arguing that competitive bidding doesn’t apply to “grants.”
Well, what the heck is a “grant?” It is defined nowhere in any City ordinance. The dictionary definition is “a sum of money given especially by the government to a person or organization for a special purpose.” Can you think of any logical reason why the government should dole out grants without some sort of bidding process? Well, patronage comes to mind. Notably, there is no exception in the Oakland Municipal Code for awards of “grants.” Well, there wasn’t. Until last month. When unbeknownst to me, the City Council quietly amended the Municipal Code to “clarify” that grants were not encompassed in any bidding requirements ordinarily applicable to contracts for goods and services. It passed unanimously on January 18, 2011 by the City Council. Ironically, the same day that my litigation settlement proposal was considered by the Council in closed session (and summarily rejected). Coincidence? I think not!
So there you have it, folks. The City is mired in debt. It doesn’t have any money to pay for basic services. And yet, it wants to be free to dole out millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to whichever nonprofit yells the loudest at Council meetings; whoever has made the appropriate donations/bribes to the appropriate government officials; whoever has paid their dues walking the streets garnering support for the latest parcel tax. And it just gave itself unanimous permission to do so. Why obey the law, when you can just change it to suit your needs? No need, when you’re the City of Oakland.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
On Chief Batts And Police Staffing
The recent news about Chief Batts’ interest in leaving Oakland for San Jose has brought welcome attention to the currently dire situation of police staffing, or lack thereof. Initially, it was just speculation about why he threw his hat in the ring, but more recently, he confirmed that he may not be interested in staying in Oakland unless City officials show the necessary commitment to staff the police department adequately and provide other necessary resources.
Oakland officials’ response to all of this has been typical. Jean Quan initially was quoted by various news sources as saying the equivalent of “don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out” and that she’d like to be able to choose her own person. Well, with police staffing at 600 officers, half-functioning police cars and malfunctioning radios, good luck finding somebody better than Batts. Then Jane Brunner and others criticized Batts for not getting involved in police negotiations and trying to pass the parcel tax. Well, first of all, I doubt he was ever invited to the bargaining table. Moreover, I think he has more than enough on his plate as it is. Public officials are not allowed to use City time or resources to do campaigning - it’s illegal. So when exactly was he supposed to have the free time to do this?
The most recent announcement by Quan that she intends to hire back 10 officers who were laid off last summer is nothing more than a gimmick, a ruse to make the press and other naïve Oaklanders think the City is actually committed to public safety and getting staffing back up. And something to point to in case he still decides to leave. So they can say about the doctor trying to operate on the patient “I don’t understand why he quit, we gave him a butter knife!”
With attrition at around 5 officers per month (and it has been higher recently), the offer is an insult. It is a band-aid on a gaping wound. . In January alone, the homicide rate has nearly tripled. The supposed promise offer certainly shouldn’t be enough to get Batts to commit to staying. For the first time, we’ve actually got somebody with some negotiating power who is basically saying, “You people know that there are people dying out there, being mugged and raped and robbed, and you are not committing to helping them. And I’m calling you on it. And unless you give me the resources I need to actually tackle this problem, I’m going to walk right on out of here, and everybody’s going to know why: because you incompetent and uncommitted bozos aren’t doing your jobs.” Pretty bad publicity, huh?
A promise to rehire 10 officers (who knows when) (and fixing some police radios) should not be enough to get him to stay. He should demand that the City commit, in writing, to a specific staffing level, with regular academies to maintain that staffing level. Otherwise, it can hardly be called a plan, or a strategy, or a commitment. Rather, it is only a diversion, a gimmick, a bone being thrown. And Batts should be smart enough to know that’s exactly what it is.
But of course, I know what’s coming. Another parcel tax proposal. And this time, City officials are going to tell Batts, you want your resources, you need to get out there and extort some more cash from all those past and future burglary and robbery victims. Needless to say, I‘d be unlikely to support that. (Somehow, I don‘t the think the proposal will be for full staffing at 803, guaranteed, for only an additional $50.00, to last only two or three years). But I’ll save my rant on that subject until I see the inevitable proposal that I know will be coming in the next couple of months. In the meantime, I hope Batts gets the City to commit, in writing, to whatever staffing level he thinks he needs, parcel tax or no parcel tax.
Oakland officials’ response to all of this has been typical. Jean Quan initially was quoted by various news sources as saying the equivalent of “don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out” and that she’d like to be able to choose her own person. Well, with police staffing at 600 officers, half-functioning police cars and malfunctioning radios, good luck finding somebody better than Batts. Then Jane Brunner and others criticized Batts for not getting involved in police negotiations and trying to pass the parcel tax. Well, first of all, I doubt he was ever invited to the bargaining table. Moreover, I think he has more than enough on his plate as it is. Public officials are not allowed to use City time or resources to do campaigning - it’s illegal. So when exactly was he supposed to have the free time to do this?
The most recent announcement by Quan that she intends to hire back 10 officers who were laid off last summer is nothing more than a gimmick, a ruse to make the press and other naïve Oaklanders think the City is actually committed to public safety and getting staffing back up. And something to point to in case he still decides to leave. So they can say about the doctor trying to operate on the patient “I don’t understand why he quit, we gave him a butter knife!”
With attrition at around 5 officers per month (and it has been higher recently), the offer is an insult. It is a band-aid on a gaping wound. . In January alone, the homicide rate has nearly tripled. The supposed promise offer certainly shouldn’t be enough to get Batts to commit to staying. For the first time, we’ve actually got somebody with some negotiating power who is basically saying, “You people know that there are people dying out there, being mugged and raped and robbed, and you are not committing to helping them. And I’m calling you on it. And unless you give me the resources I need to actually tackle this problem, I’m going to walk right on out of here, and everybody’s going to know why: because you incompetent and uncommitted bozos aren’t doing your jobs.” Pretty bad publicity, huh?
A promise to rehire 10 officers (who knows when) (and fixing some police radios) should not be enough to get him to stay. He should demand that the City commit, in writing, to a specific staffing level, with regular academies to maintain that staffing level. Otherwise, it can hardly be called a plan, or a strategy, or a commitment. Rather, it is only a diversion, a gimmick, a bone being thrown. And Batts should be smart enough to know that’s exactly what it is.
But of course, I know what’s coming. Another parcel tax proposal. And this time, City officials are going to tell Batts, you want your resources, you need to get out there and extort some more cash from all those past and future burglary and robbery victims. Needless to say, I‘d be unlikely to support that. (Somehow, I don‘t the think the proposal will be for full staffing at 803, guaranteed, for only an additional $50.00, to last only two or three years). But I’ll save my rant on that subject until I see the inevitable proposal that I know will be coming in the next couple of months. In the meantime, I hope Batts gets the City to commit, in writing, to whatever staffing level he thinks he needs, parcel tax or no parcel tax.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
