"Yes, We Can"
[May 24, 2008]

"Yes We Can!"[Barrack Obama]

“The first thing to do about Public Safety is so obvious as to see the answer in the question…”

            Whatever your politics, it must be admitted that Barrack Obama has touched all of our collective senses with his slogan... "Yes We Can!"

            Why?  Because this is as American as apple pie, hot dogs, and baseball.  We may differ as to what it means to be an American, but we all believe that "we can," especially when we have to - help each other in need, confront a crisis and solve it, and stand up for each other when in trouble.  What we can't seem to be able to do in Oakland, is to move forward, to get out of the rut, to sing together in harmony and agreement.  Well folks, we're in trouble now.  We've got a crisis.  We need to stand up for each other, roll up our sleeves, and start getting things done.

The Number One Priority is not "Public Safety."  No, it is not.  The most important thing we can do is commit ourselves to Economic Growth.  Everything we can do to help each other for a better future lies in Economic Growth.

Our Ethos should be a dedication to upwardly expand our economic base, while guaranteeing all our citizens that none will be forgotten or left behind by what we do.

The Number One Strategy, without a doubt, is to get a grip on Public Safety.
The Number Two Strategy is to establish a Working Government.
The Number Three Strategy is to Follow The Money.
The Number Four Strategy is to Design and Implement Efficiency in Operations.

            We can address education, those in need, our green concerns, preservation and development, and so many others.  None may, however, be more than merely adding another hamster wheel to our get-nothing-done colony unless we see results toward the first four strategies. 

            Inside the strategies are Tactics.  Proper attitude and application are the measures for transforming strategies. Nowhere else does "can-do" become new reality.

Comments:

            It is the responsibility of those holding public office to establish the policies, as manifest in priorities, ethos and general strategies.  City employees, especially Department Heads, hired by the policy makers, are responsible to design and implement enabling strategies and tactics.

            There are those who say Oakland has moved backwards.  In Oakland, the expression seems to say "Bullshit talks, and money walks."  This is not to say that no one cares... In fact, everyone cares.  But we're still moving backwards.  According to the Census Bureau, our population in 2000 was 399,484, and for 2006 their American Community Survey estimated it at 377,256 (+/- 13,173).  In 1950, when I first moved here, we had over 385,000 people.  

            In the 1950's, there were 654 Police Officers handling 1,417 Violent Crimes [1956 Annual Report].  On January 2, 2006, 683 cops (filled positions) would handle 7,600 Violent Crimes by the end of the year.  If there were around 1,000 other Oakland employees in 1955 and over 3,000 in 2006, then it seems that the priorities to get things done didn't necessarily favor public safety... and the results appear to speak for themselves.  There is much to be learned by comparing the budgets, but one thing certain is that citizens are paying much more and getting much less - and that is moving backwards.

            Oakland has very much the same density of population and housing units per square mile as the City of Los Angeles, more than with most other cities, yet L.A. reduced their Violent Crime rate under Chief Bratton by 39% from 2000 to 2006, while we increased our crime rate by 51% (and climbing) under Chief Tucker.  Why?  L.A. increased their population and still decreased the crime.  Conversely, Oakland decreased in population and increased the Violent Crime [5,038:7,599].  Why? San Jose increased their population by 5% and reduced their crime by 28% [4,928:3,561].  Even Richmond, our little neighbor that has similar "flatland" demographics increased their population by about 4% and their Violent Crime rate remained flat [1,200:1,224]. 

            The "Why?" in the previous paragraph is obviously rhetorical.  The answer is that the policy makers are treading water and the implementers aren't rowing.

Strategy Number One:  Public Safety

            The first thing to do about Public Safety is so obvious as to see the answer in the question - Replace the Chief of Police.  This is a clinical solution, not a political one.  His replacement should also be a clinical consideration, not one of "profile."  It should be based, of course, on a "Can-Do" attitude, but also a demonstration of Can-Do understanding.  The test must be for the candidate to show an aptitude (not on-the-job training) for critical analysis and constructive solutions (not promises or "let's try this just because.").  Results should be immediate, not still begging after 39 months.

Strategy Number Two:  Establish a Working Government

            Our Government talks, listens, consults, confers, meets, and does a lot of getting, doing, and putting-out.  But, there is no sense of forward movement.  We all cherish a democratic form of government, and we have one form in Oakland.  The City Council has Committees.  The Mayor has Task Forces.  The City Administrator has thousands of employees.  But, as an example, who's responsible for the work of Public Safety?  The Council is not allowed, by Charter, to interfere, but they are spinning all their gears trying to understand what's wrong with public safety.  The Mayor is not technically the boss of the City Administrator; she has her own authority in the Charter and she reports to the Council, but the Mayor can fire her for not doing her job.  Who tells the Mayor if the City Administrator's not doing her job?  The public is telling him every day.  For one thing, if the Chief is not doing his job, then the City Administrator is not doing hers.  The reality is that the Chief, not knowing what to do, has completely abrogated the major public safety prerogatives to the City Manager who doesn't know what to do.  But, if he doesn't know how to do the job, then how does she?  Does her private parking space at OPD qualify her?  It is reported that she, or those close to her, actually wrote the Chief's "Vision" and "White Paper."  The new Deputy Chief wrote the recent Strategic Crime Reduction Plan, and it appears to pander to - and toe the line of - excuses and generalities directed by the misguiding Vision and White Paper.  Neither the City Administrator nor the Chief signed the "Plan," so it's no wonder public safety isn't going anywhere but backwards.  Where is the "How" of things to be done?  Any can-do is evident by the "how" it is to be done and who is to do it.

So how about getting together a simple but major Charter change intended to promote forward movement?  Just a few ideas to kick things off...

1.  Instead of debating, as we have for the past half century, about whether we should have a strong-Mayor, strong-Council, or strong-City Manager form of government, why don't we focus on having a "Strong Government?"

2.  The Mayor should run with a Vice Mayor to offer double the effort, continuity, and replacement during absence.  Either should be always in Oakland.  Both should be properly and judiciously impeachable.

3.  We should have a bicameral City Council.  The current District Council is a good way to guarantee the interests of provincial and parochial concerns, but not so good for moving Oakland into the future.  We should consider a second branch of legislature to foster forward progress for all of Oakland.  The current District Council is properly composed, and can be considered senatorial.  The City-Wide Council should be more representative and have maybe eighteen City Council Members voted at-large.  This would afford greater public access.  Those who say "nothing will get done" should be countered with maybe twice as much can get done, and more importantly in the right direction.  Of course, all Council Members should also be subject to proper and judicious impeachment.

4.  The Charter should not mention specifically any role, rights or responsibilities for the City Administrator.  We have enough confusion.  The Mayor should be the senior implementer, and thus he must have the exclusive executive authority over the City Manager.  The Mayor's Office need not have separate employees, because all Oakland employees are already working for the Mayor.  The City Administrator should merely be the highest authority employee in Oakland's Executive Branch.  If the Mayor wanted to split the job into three City Administrators, each responsible for distinct operations, then so be it.  The City Manager should be in charge of all administrative affairs, not performing the roles exclusive to Department Heads.  They are the respective subject matter experts.  It should be the City Administrator's leadership and management skill sets that accommodate the needs of the experts with the resources available, and not interference. There is enough for the City Administrator to do.  The City Administrator should have an easier time evaluating the productivity of Department Heads if the various Directors are solely accountable.  There should be only one Police Chief, not a lot of fingers in the pie.  Currently the fog of police leadership is wet with city administrative interference, mayoral engagement, a separate mayoral Public Safety Director, a Mayor's Chief of Staff, a bevy of City Council desperation, conflicting outside "experts," various activist pressures, a variety of Public Safety Task Forces, and many more. 

5.  Any Executive Branch employee, from Department Head [Director?] upward, should have the "advice and consent" of the District Council branch of Oakland's Legislature.

6.  The City Councils should have full authority and power in the Charter to require inquiry of the the Executive Branch, but not interference in its operations. 
 
            This topic deserves an extended conversation, but hopefully not as long as it took for our country's Constitution.  We must do something soon.

Strategy Number Three:  Follow the Money

            Money is the currency for productivity.  To move forward in Oakland, we must be productive with Oakland's money.  As any parent tries to teach a child, handling money takes a certain attitude; principle to that attitude is to handle it frugally today and save for the future.  "Don't spend it all" is what we’ve heard countless times.  The independently elected City Auditor is wonderfully positioned, but she should have her role extended and re-defined for better oversight.  The Auditor's Office should of course have more money to do more things, but that means also that our current budget should be sufficient to expect the net return to be greater.  The results are as measurably determinable as cost-effective evaluation/planning is the mainstay for leveraging every dollar in private business.  In other words, if the Auditor cost us another $5 million, but we saved $20 million, then at that ratio why not spend $10 million? 

            Let's get some savviness into policy and the implementation of financial utilization.  As an example, let's not automatically think that hiring more cops for exaggerated sums is the path to better public safety.  If Wayne Tucker's $28 million in overtime for OPD, the equivalent of 200 experienced cops, and his three dozen annuitants couldn't get better public safety, then why hire 200 new cops to add to the confusion and get just as little benefit from them?  Why not get rid of the confusion and improve results first, and then talk about what's needed?  Get this type of thinking operative in every part of our government - getting more bang for the bucks we've got before spending more bucks - and watch real progress happen.

            Saving means investing.  Every Department is in a flurry for a few months, beginning around March, to spend every dime they have so they can justify asking for more in the next budget.  Why not see how much we can save, while getting more done, by incentifying employees with bonuses (or even a lottery) with a portion of the monies saved, and putting the rest in a fund for a rainy day?  It is easy for employees to want to spend the money because they are all told that "otherwise it will go back into the General Fund."  And, everyone knows the General Fund is a black hole.

            If Stanford, with far fewer constituents and graduates, can amass an endowment capable of spending for the benefit of their people while growing ever richer, why can't Oakland?  One of the biggest clubs in the world is the "I used to live in Oakland Club."  Oakland has much larger alumni than Stanford.  The difference is that Stanford has an independent management company handling their funds.  They recently earned $3 Billion.  Oakland's entire "unmanageable" budget is barely over $1 Billion.  Oakland can amass dollars, properties, philanthropists, investments, and a profitable future.  But, it has to have the right attitude about money.  "Watch the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves."  Benjamin Franklin said this, and we can recall the role he played in the formation of a better government.

Strategy Number Four:  Design and Implement Efficiencies in Government

            Why is this so difficult?  If government efficiency is rated 2 out of 10, then doubling efficiency should be simple.

            Again, with an OPD example (since it is our number one strategy), I drove by the PAB (Police Administration Building) at 8:45 am this morning.  There were 38 marked police cars parked at headquarters.  I always count the cars there because it's easy.  At Eastmont it's not so easy, but I assume a similar number are parked underground there.  Why aren't they in the neighborhoods?  Also, why did I see three cops driving around in one marked car yesterday?

            Do we have too few cars, or too few being properly utilized?  The same question should be asked when we think about how many cops we have or should have.  If we halved the time cops spend in headquarters, wouldn't that double such times on the street?  If we halved the 78 minutes per average call, wouldn't that double the number of calls we could answer?  If the motivation of our cops was doubled, now estimated at 20% because of low morale and high job dissatisfaction, then couldn't we expect an exponential increase in productivity if our cops were inspired?  Off the wall - if we have increased our high-tech by many millions of dollars and crime still increased drastically, then why not spend less on high-tech and emphasize more low-tech... like talking with people.

            I can't resist this one...  If the Chief can't do the job, and the Violent Crime numbers are perilously expressive on this… and the City Administrator has to have her people constantly involved, and an "Assistant Chief" has to be installed, and the Mayor has to throw in a Public Safety Officer, and a Director of (Police) Administration has to be created, and four Captains have to become administrative assistants, and Harnett and a clutch of outside consultants have to tell us how to reorganize, and three governmental committees have to spin their wheels, then why not just trade it the whole mess and confusion in for a Chief who can do the job.  That would save a pile of money, get OPD much more productive, and instantly stimulate police morale, job satisfaction, motivation and initiative.

ronoz