“An Uninspiring Bunch”
[April 13, 2008]

            It is certainly easy to understand the frustrations felt by Mr. Mark Forster (in letter below). However, it is time for cool, constructive, positive and perceptible actions to take place in Oakland. I would like to comment specifically on his enumerated points, keeping in mind that Oakland's future should be as if constructing a diamond ring [a Model City?]. There are many facets that need to be cut and polished, but they are all on the same stone. Also, the mounting needs to be both attractive and firmly sustainable. We would love to show off our City, and have the admiration of others as shining as our own pride. I'll take his points in order...

            1. "Uninspiring bunch of incompetent incumbents?" No, not at all. This reference to Oakland's political incumbents sounds attractive to be sure, but it doesn't make real sense. Sure, there is some acquired narcissism going on, and self-aggrandizement inevitably leads to some power playing by Council Members, but this is human nature. Persons with fragile egos should not go into politics. What I want to argue is the reverse of what might seem to be the (emotional) common-sense of - "Throw the bastards out." Just the opposite, those in office are fully networked and can enroll their vast matrix of contacts if we can just get everyone in the same playbook. First we need a new playbook. We are in a tug of war with a lot of different interests, with all the stakeholders vying for their take on a "better Oakland." What we need to do is get everyone on the same rope, and pulling together in the same direction.

            Nadel, DeLaFuente, Reid, Chang, Brooks, Kernighan, Quan, and Bruner are all pulling very hard, but not together, and not in the right direction. The talents, motivation, energy, and determination to take care of each of their Districts is admirable and obvious. I include Mr. Chang because he is such an effective role model in the Asian Community. In other words, the system that created separate Council Districts seems somewhat to be working; the individual neighborhood constituents are getting excellent representation. The breakdown is when they consider the broader picture, in this case the violent crime rate in Oakland that is affecting all the Districts. Also, agreeing on what is good for Oakland's broader future is often very different from what some District constituents might seek to influence.

            The incumbents are the "policy makers," not the executors, and the obvious confusion and desperation for an effective anti-violence strategy finds them thrust into the spotlight searching for "workable" policies. There is nothing more critical as a platform for Oakland's success, even survival, as the OPD which is the government's implement of assurance guaranteeing the most basic inalienable rights. The policies articulated in Council Resolutions and records repeatedly since 1993 were consistently for the OPD to engage in "community policing." The Council supported Measure Y, that introduced Problem Solving Officers (PSO's) into the public safety equation. In fact, the City Council has been continually active in engaging (endorsing and funding) many operations aimed at reducing especially violent crimes and offering better police services. Literally hundreds of neighborhood meetings have been held by Council members to seek solutions against crime in Oakland. The Council is doing their job as well as can be expected. To replace Council Members might sound plausible, but it won't be done. The "incumbent's advantage" is there for a good reason. They have garnered and earned the influence they have. We should benefit from it.
Solutions? (1) Consider a Charter Change that would have six "at large seats" in addition to the six District seats, so that there can be a broader play that sees policy makers engaged in a balance between what's good for Oakland's future and what's good for the neighborhoods now. (2) Just as any losing team finds its owners dismissing head coaches, managers, and players, Oakland must immediately replace the department heads responsible, and shift personnel, for failing to execute the policies.

            2. Cuts in OPD budget and resulting shortage of manpower responsible for sky-high crime rates? Again, an example of common sense completely wrong. OPD's budget has actually had surpluses every year, but subject to the excesses of "spend it all plus some" mentality. I witnessed it. It looks better to be able to add to the pile of other excuses to say OPD is underfunded. The entire OPD used to operate, with many more calls for service and a higher crime rate, entirely from within the Police Administration Building at 7th and Broadway. Now it is spending more and getting less done from 7 different locations. It is actually "Headquarters Bloated." Overtime for OPD has been affordable, but completely wasteful and unaccounted (actually over-generalized and commonly mislabeled). The equivalent of 200 full time cops was spent last year in overtime and over three dozen experienced annuitants were hired, and yet everyone is buying the bait that OPD is understaffed. Sure, OPD can use more cops, but take January 1988 as an example. With only 607 cops on the roster, and far fewer civilian employees, OPD actually handled more violent crimes and calls for service than today. OPD has 757 cops on the payroll as of today. The past three years have seen more cops and civilians than ever before on OPD, more facilities, more money (even adjusted for inflation), and getting less for it than ever before.

            Yes, the crime rate has gone sky-high. But, it's not for lack of budget or manpower. If we can't spend the money we have now effectively or use the manpower we have now efficiently, then what good is it to throw more money and recruiting at the problem. Yes, if we can afford it, put more money aside for better public safety to put to use after we can demonstrate better handling of it. While California and the country have gone down in violent crimes, Oakland has gone up - not just a little, but a huge paradigm escalation over the past three years under the current leadership [see other essays]. There are no legitimate excuses for this. We didn't get a large influx of criminals. The criminals we had merely enjoy an environment with greater freedoms. We didn't suffer dramatically negative demographic changes. They actually generally improved. It is entirely the result of ineffective OPD leadership. The real concern should be that if we couldn't handle it in the good years, what will happen in the future when the cycle to bad years will surely return?

            The most manifest indicator that things are not working is the obvious and constant scrutiny the OPD has undergone by the Council Members at every turn. They have little or no confidence in OPD's effectiveness today. They ask for information, and get only generalizations, inadequate data, or nothing at all. What they are experiencing is that OPD seems to be as a barn-yard chicken fluttering about with its head cut off. The criminal foxes are in the hen house because the OPD rooster is simply not on the job.

            Solutions?
(1) Without prejudice, replace the Chief with someone who knows Oakland, OPD, urban social issues, has leadership qualities (inspires cops and citizens), has management skill sets to organize and deploy properly, and who can sustain Oakland at least to a crime rate in keeping with generally prevailing trends. Results, not excuses or contrived "new programs", are the only report card.
(2) Declare an immediate Crisis Crime Condition [not a panic State of Emergency] and have a deliberate General Public Safety Plan [not written by City Hall operatives, but by a Chief who can actually write and execute] with specific measurable strategies and tactics, flexible enough to adjust to changing needs. Forget generic and excuse-laden Vision Statements, White Papers, or Strategic Plans, written by others, that just waste more time.
(3) Very importantly, Install, with existing personnel and budget, an Office of Police management and Budget to get real, detailed, and transparently available information to turn into actionable strategies and tactics. There is no credible, relevant or unbiased information coming out of OPD today, when it comes out at all.
(4) After getting qualified OPD leadership in office, keep other City Hall officials out of the influence mix on how OPD should be operated. We have to think that the over-engagement of such officials over the past three years has been well meaning and in desperation to fill the obvious vacuum of OPD ineffectiveness.
Their ignorance of the subject matter is exemplified by their endorsement of failure: (a) Falsely blaming shortage of manpower (silly "baby-boomer" statements); (b) Falsely blaming the OPOA (a handy but silly scapegoat); (c) Going headlong into Area Command as if a panacea [actually the opposite of community policing]; (d) Charging into 12-hour shifts [just to buy time, knowing it has no advantages for deployment, overtime reduction, crime reduction, and again, it is the opposite vehicle for community policing]; (e) Most importantly, instill confidence, spirit, energy, and emphasize high morale and job satisfaction in OPD members and civilians.

            3. Bloated salaries, staff, etc... This is a particular problem of government everywhere, and to expect Oakland to be fiscally responsible is to ask the policy makers and Department Heads to think entirely outside the civil service financial context. Oakland is one of the nation's largest corporations, if one thinks of the $1.1 Billion dollars in revenue it takes in annually... totally tax free. This is a tremendous amount of "free cash flow" that any private corporation would drool over. Stockholders should surely be demanding dividends. Yet, in the traditional civil service mentality, there are no "operating profits." Every dime must be spent, with a constant fear that enough never is. Every March, the Police Department division commanders are reminded to quickly find ways to spend the remaining monies because otherwise "it will be returned to the General Fund."

            Solutions? It is tough to get a City-wide mental set that doesn't want to spend every cent because of the many interests competing for expansion and thus more monies.
(1) The Mayor should be the Chairman of the Board, and Council Members should view themselves as the Board of Directors.
(2) The City Administrator should be the CEO, and dropped just as quickly as any private industry CEO whom shareholders find grossly under-performing.
(3) The Department Heads may be the Cabinet Members, but as such should find themselves just as easily replaceable when the corporation is under-performing.
(4) Oakland should be run as any large private corporation.
(5) Oakland should be contributing into an Endowment that is funded with at least 15% of tax and other revenues. Stanford's endowment earned three times the $1.1 Billion dollars it costs to operate Oakland (General Fund and Earmarked). In private business, this is known as having sufficient "operating reserves" for future operations and capital expenditures.
(6) The first casualty of the shift to viable government should be the "Can't Do-ers." Innovators are not the best speakers. They aren't armed with the latest buzz-words. They aren't wasting time running around the country looking for "best-practices." They are inventing them. All great inventions are the results of carefully measured experiments. Look to the people with the good questions, not the likable answers.

            4. Non-germane issues? Sorry, the nature of democratic government is by definition to be involved in issues popular to some and unpopular to others. If the implication is to gather a greater focus on other priorities by politicians, that makes sense. Each of the Council Members is very sensitive to constituent appeals, so they should be solicited, subscribed, and directed in as many ways as possible. Constituents shouldn't be asking the policy makers to find the answers, but they should demand that they be informed enough to recognize bad grades of performance when they see them.

            5. Oakland a gem - run into the ground by mismanagement? That's easy to say, but just not true from the predicate phrase on. Oakland has not been a gem since the big expansion at the turn of the last century. Sure, I love it and so do many others. The weather is great, the nostalgia of so many unchanged aspects feels good. But herein is the rub. Not much has really changed, it's only gotten much more dangerous to enjoy. When I was a kid, my Mom felt safe enough to take us on the bus to Housewives Market and Swans to buy cheap food. On Sundays we always went on picnics to Mosswood Park. Only 12 years old, I would ride my bike deep into West Oakland to listen to Blues at a record shop. On summer nights, my Mom and Dad would take us kids on the bus downtown to look at the store windows and then to the see the lights at Jack London. Being constantly alert and feeling unsafe anywhere in the City never occurred to us. Yes, in that regard Oakland was a gem.

            However, since 1950 Oakland hasn't improved much when you really think about it. It had a population then of 385,000, and notwithstanding the politicians' claim of 418,000 today, the US Census Neighborhood Survey lists it at 377,000 in 2006. Only 10% of the businesses of 1985 are still in Oakland today. No one may feel safe anywhere. Businesses have to be cajoled to come here or remain, and they leave as fast, or faster than they come in. I drove to the Paramount, and showed my brother the downtown area, and he thought sadly it was blighted. Stores were closed and boarded up, second and third stories were obviously empty. Citizens find themselves members of the largest club in the world - the "I Used To Live In Oakland Club." Oakland Politicians put up a good front, but more than anything they want to see things better. They are supposed to have the visions, but they must insist on a government apparatus that can offer the highway to their visions.

            Solutions? Set the policies to be sure, but demand results or insist on changes in government service leadership and management. (1) Start with promoting a Charter change that makes a Model Government for a Model City. Separation of Powers with Checks and Balances. Defined responsibilities, with limitations of power. Balanced representation for neighborhoods and City-wide interests. Encourage strength in action, with proper veto and override provisions. Expedite the process.  (2) Insist on a winning performance from a winning government team. Make government work as if beholding to shareholders for efficiencies that are measured as profits. (3) Face reality and confront it well.

[above essay written in response to following editorial]
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:30:26 -0700
Subject: OPINION: Oakland Elections
An uninspiring bunch

THE JUNE 3RD PRIMARY will offer Oakland residents an opportunity to remove or replace City Council incumbents in districts 1, 3, 5, 7 and the at-large seat.

The incumbents, a collective, uninspiring bunch of incompetents, must be held accountable for their failed policies:

- Their previous cuts in the public safety budgets have resulted in sky-high crime rates, and a long-term, chronic and structural police shortage endangering our health, safety and economic vitality.

- Their unwillingness to cut and eliminate their own bloated salaries, perks, pensions and staffs for the good of the city's fiscal stability.

- Their preoccupation with non-germane issues, including involving themselves in foreign policy, RV and smoking resolutions while the city infrastructure crumbles.

Oakland is a gem that has been run into the ground by gross mismanagement, reckless spending and plain stupidity.

I urge all Oakland citizens to take their city back by removing these individuals from office.

Mark W. Forster
Oakland