The profile gave Brouhard 59% of the space compared to her challenger; misstated a Stanford study and Prop 39; and supplied evidence for one side only — a framing Oaklandside has used before
I'd like to see Oaklandside, or some other news service, look at the issue of how a school board can be led by a person who is also head of the union that it negotiates with. Similarly, there is a recent addition to the Oakland City Council who is or recently was a leader of the firefighters' union. Is this typical in other cities across the state and country? Seems like less than ideal.
Tom -- Thank you for your comment. I agree that when a former union leader becomes an elected official of an agency that approves contracts with that same union, it presents a strong perceived conflict of interest around those approvals. Because of this, some observers believe that elected officials should recuse themselves from those approval votes (at a minimum), like they do when other contracts or land use decisions come before elected officials who have real or perceived conflicts. (This is required in some situations, but not all.) The same can also be said of elected officials who accept campaign donations from people or organizations who have business before the agency's board for approval -- recusal is the only ethical (but alas, not always legally required) way for elected officials to demonstrate that they are free from such conflicts. To make this optional or expect elected officials to self-determine when they should recuse is to ignore human nature; time and time again, it has been proven that some elected officials can only be counted on to make the decision to recuse when they are legally bound to do so (and sometimes, even a legal requirement does not stop them).
This is why intelligent Oaklanders, read the Oakland Report, not the Oaklandside. If you want facts and accurate reporting, not liberal slanting that robs you of truth, subscribe to the Oakland Report.
And Bravo on a tremendously well researched article.
I'd like to see Oaklandside, or some other news service, look at the issue of how a school board can be led by a person who is also head of the union that it negotiates with. Similarly, there is a recent addition to the Oakland City Council who is or recently was a leader of the firefighters' union. Is this typical in other cities across the state and country? Seems like less than ideal.
Tom -- Thank you for your comment. I agree that when a former union leader becomes an elected official of an agency that approves contracts with that same union, it presents a strong perceived conflict of interest around those approvals. Because of this, some observers believe that elected officials should recuse themselves from those approval votes (at a minimum), like they do when other contracts or land use decisions come before elected officials who have real or perceived conflicts. (This is required in some situations, but not all.) The same can also be said of elected officials who accept campaign donations from people or organizations who have business before the agency's board for approval -- recusal is the only ethical (but alas, not always legally required) way for elected officials to demonstrate that they are free from such conflicts. To make this optional or expect elected officials to self-determine when they should recuse is to ignore human nature; time and time again, it has been proven that some elected officials can only be counted on to make the decision to recuse when they are legally bound to do so (and sometimes, even a legal requirement does not stop them).
This is why intelligent Oaklanders, read the Oakland Report, not the Oaklandside. If you want facts and accurate reporting, not liberal slanting that robs you of truth, subscribe to the Oakland Report.
And Bravo on a tremendously well researched article.