Sean, I am wholeheartedly in agreement with your assessment. As a former department head for the city, I served proudly under former City Manager Henry Gardner's leadership during a time when there was effective leadership, accountability and true concern for the responsibility to provide Oakland residents with high quality city services. The erosion didn't happen over night. It's been incremental and peaked first during the pandemic and then under former Mayor Sheng Thao.
And I also recall a time when commissions were fully functional and supported by professional staff. The prior comments about volunteers is respected. However, I disagree with the notion that any municipality should restrict the participation of volunteers to serve on commissions as they bring a level of representation and insight into needs on the ground that paid professionals cannot. They also bring much needed expertise.
The solution in my view is reflective of what we're seeing everywhere-the lack of accountability and a failure of citizens to demand better. Oakland is forever my home and in my heart. It deserves so much better.
Sean’s experience is convincing that these volunteer committees should be eliminated. Sean points out they accomplish nothing and to allow unpaid volunteers to interject themselves into matters for which Oakland has well paid professionals seems counterproductive. Old adage: You get what you pay for. Now it may well be that there are some/many unqualified professionals/appointees in city government who should be replaced, but that doesn’t justify having the many volunteer commissions that Oakland has.
I echo Sean's perspective on city functioning. As an active member of a community group focused on the Dimond District, I have a list of specifics as long as my arm of all the ways the City does not respond and take action. It's a non-stop crusade to get anything done. The sense is that staff have no effective leadership, no performance plans and measures, no systems to keep the public informed and served. A long-time department manager (who does care) recently told us that it's even difficult to get some staff to come to work as required. All of this falls squarely on the Mayor's and City Administrator's shoulders.
THANK YOU, Mr. Everhart. I have long suspected this dynamic at play, from the 2014 litigation and 2015 settlement with Waste Management over the contract award to California Waste Solutions, the ill-planned (no-planned?} millions spent on stadium renovations with no guarantees that the Raiders would stay here, followed by baseless, years-long antitrust litigation against the NFL rejected by every federal and state court at every level, and now the catastrophic exposure to a $674,000,000 damages award to the owners of the West Gateway Terminal after the City breached a contract it should never have entered into. Does anyone in a decision-making position in this city ever even read the documents they're voting on?
It seems from reading this that the commission should have had greater communication with the city attorney (or had an advocate in Oakland's govt that was close with the city atty). It should have been made obvious the ways in which the boilerplate agreement needed to be adjusted in accord with whatever legal considerations were appropriate.
Couldn't the PAC have tapped a pro-bono lawyer (perhaps someone with the EFF?) to review/redline/summarize? What language/method was included in the boilerplate to allow for privacy needs being added after approval?
What have other nearby or similar cities who also use Flock done? I note that Hayward, San Leandro, Berkeley, SF all use Flock's system. Was that ever considered?
I think this sentence is misleading - from the linked document, it appears that the contract with Flock costs $250k/yr, not the illegal dumping program. Why couldn't the city task itself with coming back with an answer on the revenue raised from dumping tickets at some other point?
"In another example: at its October 2 meeting, the PAC was presented with a report on the city’s illegal dumping enforcement program, which involves outdoor surveillance cameras and costs taxpayers $252,000 annually.13 According to the report, the program resulted in 172 illegal dumping tickets issued during one year."
While I think the privacy concerns around sanctuary cities are important (and are going completely ignored across the country and are so symbolic at best), I also feel like several members of the PAC were considering changes from the perspective of the angry leftovers of Occupy, the East Bay's brigade of protesters who all predictably show up in Oakland en masse (not Berkeley!) to march onto the freeways and smash the windows of businesses in anger about events that may or may not have even happened in Oakland, or even in California. The disproportionate emphasis on how ICE may use license plate readers negates the primary, hopefully-agreed-upon premise of getting such cameras: enabling understaffed law enforcement to use technology to address and solve Oakland's rampant crime problem.
As such, this issue is just another example of Oakland's low-key grift, graft, and lack of care about it's own future.
This is heartbreaking. I served on two city commissions in the past. The Citizens Budget Advisory Committee and the Charter Review committee. Both were years ago when the city had a professional city manager. I don’t want to unnecessarily correlate the two, but city staff was responsive and professional.
Recalls a famous line in "Oh... Rosalinda." a movie about the world of trashed and occupied post-WW2 Vienna. "Hopeless, yes. Impossible, no." The true fragrance of decay.
Yet walking in north of the Lake and of Grand yesterday, in the warm sun and quiet, looking at all the newly built housing, Oakland still had the charm it had for me decades ago when I first arrived. Like Vienna, this city can still be great, even if its political leadership is garbage.
I’ve seen the same thing on the PRAC with measure Q. The city comes with reports that are confusing and cannot provide answers to simple questions. Meanwhile we have millions of dollars being spent and moved around without any accountability.
Sean, I am wholeheartedly in agreement with your assessment. As a former department head for the city, I served proudly under former City Manager Henry Gardner's leadership during a time when there was effective leadership, accountability and true concern for the responsibility to provide Oakland residents with high quality city services. The erosion didn't happen over night. It's been incremental and peaked first during the pandemic and then under former Mayor Sheng Thao.
And I also recall a time when commissions were fully functional and supported by professional staff. The prior comments about volunteers is respected. However, I disagree with the notion that any municipality should restrict the participation of volunteers to serve on commissions as they bring a level of representation and insight into needs on the ground that paid professionals cannot. They also bring much needed expertise.
The solution in my view is reflective of what we're seeing everywhere-the lack of accountability and a failure of citizens to demand better. Oakland is forever my home and in my heart. It deserves so much better.
Sean’s experience is convincing that these volunteer committees should be eliminated. Sean points out they accomplish nothing and to allow unpaid volunteers to interject themselves into matters for which Oakland has well paid professionals seems counterproductive. Old adage: You get what you pay for. Now it may well be that there are some/many unqualified professionals/appointees in city government who should be replaced, but that doesn’t justify having the many volunteer commissions that Oakland has.
I echo Sean's perspective on city functioning. As an active member of a community group focused on the Dimond District, I have a list of specifics as long as my arm of all the ways the City does not respond and take action. It's a non-stop crusade to get anything done. The sense is that staff have no effective leadership, no performance plans and measures, no systems to keep the public informed and served. A long-time department manager (who does care) recently told us that it's even difficult to get some staff to come to work as required. All of this falls squarely on the Mayor's and City Administrator's shoulders.
THANK YOU, Mr. Everhart. I have long suspected this dynamic at play, from the 2014 litigation and 2015 settlement with Waste Management over the contract award to California Waste Solutions, the ill-planned (no-planned?} millions spent on stadium renovations with no guarantees that the Raiders would stay here, followed by baseless, years-long antitrust litigation against the NFL rejected by every federal and state court at every level, and now the catastrophic exposure to a $674,000,000 damages award to the owners of the West Gateway Terminal after the City breached a contract it should never have entered into. Does anyone in a decision-making position in this city ever even read the documents they're voting on?
It seems from reading this that the commission should have had greater communication with the city attorney (or had an advocate in Oakland's govt that was close with the city atty). It should have been made obvious the ways in which the boilerplate agreement needed to be adjusted in accord with whatever legal considerations were appropriate.
Couldn't the PAC have tapped a pro-bono lawyer (perhaps someone with the EFF?) to review/redline/summarize? What language/method was included in the boilerplate to allow for privacy needs being added after approval?
What have other nearby or similar cities who also use Flock done? I note that Hayward, San Leandro, Berkeley, SF all use Flock's system. Was that ever considered?
I think this sentence is misleading - from the linked document, it appears that the contract with Flock costs $250k/yr, not the illegal dumping program. Why couldn't the city task itself with coming back with an answer on the revenue raised from dumping tickets at some other point?
"In another example: at its October 2 meeting, the PAC was presented with a report on the city’s illegal dumping enforcement program, which involves outdoor surveillance cameras and costs taxpayers $252,000 annually.13 According to the report, the program resulted in 172 illegal dumping tickets issued during one year."
While I think the privacy concerns around sanctuary cities are important (and are going completely ignored across the country and are so symbolic at best), I also feel like several members of the PAC were considering changes from the perspective of the angry leftovers of Occupy, the East Bay's brigade of protesters who all predictably show up in Oakland en masse (not Berkeley!) to march onto the freeways and smash the windows of businesses in anger about events that may or may not have even happened in Oakland, or even in California. The disproportionate emphasis on how ICE may use license plate readers negates the primary, hopefully-agreed-upon premise of getting such cameras: enabling understaffed law enforcement to use technology to address and solve Oakland's rampant crime problem.
As such, this issue is just another example of Oakland's low-key grift, graft, and lack of care about it's own future.
This is heartbreaking. I served on two city commissions in the past. The Citizens Budget Advisory Committee and the Charter Review committee. Both were years ago when the city had a professional city manager. I don’t want to unnecessarily correlate the two, but city staff was responsive and professional.
Very well written, and very disturbing. It's hard to see how the situation can be improved.
"Financial consequences are dire, yet avoidable."
Recalls a famous line in "Oh... Rosalinda." a movie about the world of trashed and occupied post-WW2 Vienna. "Hopeless, yes. Impossible, no." The true fragrance of decay.
Yet walking in north of the Lake and of Grand yesterday, in the warm sun and quiet, looking at all the newly built housing, Oakland still had the charm it had for me decades ago when I first arrived. Like Vienna, this city can still be great, even if its political leadership is garbage.
I’ve seen the same thing on the PRAC with measure Q. The city comes with reports that are confusing and cannot provide answers to simple questions. Meanwhile we have millions of dollars being spent and moved around without any accountability.